In n axes Baltic and Slavic languages. Balto-Slavic community. Prosody and accentology

Proponents of Endzelin's hypothesis of secondary convergence were T. Lehr-Splavinsky, S. B. Bernstein, B. V. Gornung, K. Moshinsky.

Chronology

One of the supporters of the theory of Balto-Slavic unity, T. Ler-Splavinsky determines the period of existence of the community at 500-600 years, linking the beginning of the existence of the community (and its separation from the Proto-Indo-European continuum) to the era of expansion of the Corded Ceramics culture, which included the Proto-Balto-Slavs, and the end to the era of expansion of the Lusatian culture.

Historical background

In the 18th and even at the beginning of the 19th century, the dominant point of view, also presented by M. Lomonosov in Russia, was that the Baltic languages ​​​​descended from the Slavic ones. With the establishment of the comparative-historical method in the 19th century, F. Bopp put forward the idea of ​​genealogical (genetic) proximity between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, and R. Raek and A. Schleicher about the Balto-Slavic-Germanic proximity, within the framework of which A. Schleicher postulated the subsequent identification of two separate groups - the Balto-Slavic proper and the Germanic. Subsequently, Schleicher’s position on the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-language was, on the one hand, supported by researchers such as K. Brugman and F. Fortunatov, and criticized by A. L. Pogodin and Baudouin de Courtenay. In particular, A. L. Pogodin in his study “Traces of root-bases in Slavic languages” (Warsaw, 1903) came to the conclusion that the Balto-Slavic proto-language is a scientific fiction, and K. Brugman in his “Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen" (Straßburg, 1902-1904) substantiated the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-language on the basis of eight features. Among the Russian scientists, the theory of the Balto-Slavic proto-language was fully accepted by V. Porzhezinsky and A. Shakhmatov, the latter of whom also supplemented Brugman’s argumentation with data from accentology. In 1908, A. Meilleux, having collected all the facts known at that time in his book “Les dialectes indo-europeens” (Paris, 1908), proposed the concept of the independent and parallel development of the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic languages, and also put forward his own counter-arguments regarding Brugman's eight signs.

A scientific debate arose. A major event in the study of the Baltic-Slavic problem was the monograph by Y. Endzelin “Slavic-Baltic Studies” (Kharkov, 1911). Its author, being initially a supporter of the existence of the Balto-Slavic proto-language, nevertheless, contrary to his own views in his research, came to an intermediate position between the point of view of Meillet and Brugman, expressing an opinion that differed significantly from both the theory of parallel and independent development of the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic languages, and from the theory of the Balto-Slavic proto-language. According to Endzelin, already in the Proto-Indo-European era, the Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic dialects had significant differences. After the collapse of the Indo-European community and the separation of the Indo-Aryans, the Slavs, neighboring them and the Balts, after some time became closer to the latter, experiencing an era of joint development together with the Balts. Thus, it makes sense to talk about a period of long life together, but not about the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-language.

Overall rating

With regard to the hypotheses related to the Balto-Slavic problem, their certain distance from the comparative method and focus on their own theoretical constructs is noted. Among the main problems of this kind of concepts and methodological comments regarding the very question of Balto-Slavic kinship, the following is noted:

1. When proving genetic kinship, it is necessary to operate with the most reliable criterion, namely, phonological innovation, or more precisely, the disappearance of “ phonological contrasts in a number of etymologically related units", since only such processes are irreversible and devoid of morphological impurities.
2. Among the hypotheses that insist on the genetic relationship of the respective languages, there is a lack of establishment of joint innovations with simultaneous absolute and relative chronologization of this kind of isogloss.
3. It must be taken into account that structural parallels, in particular word-formation morphology, where Baltic and Slavic share the most common features, within the framework of the comparative method “ should be assigned less evidentiary value».
4. Among the hypotheses insisting on the genetic relationship of the corresponding languages, there is a lack of clarification of “ what share of convergent traits was the result of a shared heritage, and what share was the result of linguistic contacts?».

Arguments of the parties and private observations

Phonetics and phonology

Arguments of supporters

Yu. Tambovtsev in his article devoted to the statistical study of the phono-typological distance between the Baltic and some Slavic languages, in which the typology of the structure of sound chains is analyzed based on the frequency of occurrence of eight groups of consonants (labial, front-lingual, middle-lingual, back-lingual, sonorant, noisy stops, noisy fricative, noisy voiced), as well as vowels, which makes it possible to establish the proximity between languages ​​at the phonetic level, provides the following quantitative characteristics based on the value of the chi-square criterion between the languages ​​being compared:

From this, as the author of the work points out, it turns out that Lithuanian and Latvian are closest in sound to Old Russian, but not modern Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. Moreover, as Yu. Tambovtsev notes, the phono-typological distance between Lithuanian and Latvian is much greater than between Lithuanian and Old Russian, and Latvian is closest to Old Russian, which, as the author of the work believes, may indicate the existence of a Balto-Slavic group in the Indo-European family of languages. Of the other Slavic languages, as Yu. Tambovtsev points out, the Lithuanian language is least similar in sound to Serbo-Croatian and Latvian is least close to Polish. In turn, the closeness of Lithuanian to Belarusian, according to the author, can be explained not only by Balto-Slavic unity in the past, but also by intensive contacts between both languages ​​within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Criticism

In turn, Lithuanian linguist Antanas Klimas (lit.) Russian in his article on the relationship between Slavic and Baltic, he criticized Semerenya’s evidence. Where not stated to the contrary, criticism of the arguments of supporters of the genetic relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages, in this case on the basis of phonetic, phonological and morphonological (morphophonological) features, is given by Antanas Klimas:

Private observations

According to L. Moshinsky, the change in prim.-e. syllabic sonorants, although it is a common Balto-Slavic process and can be considered to substantiate the thesis about the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-language community, at the same time, already in the Balto-Slavic era in Proto-Slavic, as indicated by a number of data, there was a different implementation of this from the Proto-Baltic process associated with the activity of the law of the open syllable in the Proto-Slavic dialects of the Balto-Slavic language. T. Milevsky, for his part, denying the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-linguistic community, based on this specificity of Proto-Slavic, derives its sonants directly from Proto-Slavic. syllabic sonorants.

Arguments of opponents

Where the contrary is not indicated, the arguments of opponents of the existence of a genetic relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages, in this case - on the basis of phonetic, phonological and morphonological (morphophonological) features are given according to Antanas Klimas:

In turn, A.V. Dubasova, in her work on the formation of consonantal systems in the Baltic and Slavic languages, points out that in both languages ​​processes such as the transition to Proto-E. took place. voiced aspirates into voiced ones, iotation, palatalization, then assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis and deletion of consonants and a number of others (see below). In her opinion, such a similar list of changes may indicate a special relationship between Slavic and Baltic, but before drawing conclusions about the qualitative side of such relationships, it is necessary to consider these processes from the point of view of their causes, consequences and course.

Thus, in the field of iotation, A.V. Dubasova points out that there are significant differences between Slavic and Baltic iotation, which researchers have long noted. At the same time, even among the Baltic languages ​​themselves, iotation led to different results, from which, as she states, they usually concluded that this process occurred after the collapse of Proto-Baltic into separate Baltic languages, and this despite, as A.V. Dubasova emphasizes, iotation is found at the Proto-Slavic level. As for palatalization, it, as A.V. Dubasova notes, is typologically a trivial phonetic change, the presence of which in Slavic and Baltic cannot indicate any genetic connections, especially since there are significant differences between Baltic palatalization and Slavic . In her separate article devoted to this phonetic process, A. V. Dubasova begins her work by stating the existing difficulties among specialists in reconstructing the phonological system of the Proto-Baltic language, due to the specifics of the material of the Old Prussian language, regarding which there are often inconsistent positions among different researchers . Further, pointing out the closeness between Latvian and Slavic palatalization, A.V. Dubasova at the same time shows that the implementation of this process, conditions and features, in particular changes or, conversely, non-change of consonants before certain vowels, were different in both languages. In her work on the formation of consonantal systems in the Baltic and Slavic, in relation to assimilation in voicing-voicelessness, A.V. Dubasova argues that this assimilation took place already in Proto-Slavic, and its cause was the loss of ultra-short vowels, but at the same time in Proto-Baltic ultra-short vowels are not reconstructed, which she believes suggests that Baltic assimilation has a different origin. In the case of the loss of final consonants, she points out that in Proto-Slavic this process was a consequence of a general tendency, while in Proto-Baltic the loss of final consonants is not observed at all. Regarding metathesis, A.V. Dubasova notes that in Proto-Baltic it was an independent phenomenon, not associated, unlike Proto-Slavic, with the opening of a syllable. As for prostheses, epentheses ( *s-mobile) and the introduction of consonants, then in the first case this phenomenon manifests itself much more intensely in Slavic than in the Baltic languages; in the second case, *s-mobile in Slavic in many cases it was lost, and in the Baltic languages ​​there are still quite a lot of examples of it; in turn, the appearance of etymologically unjustified k, g before sibilants or sibilants (the introduction of consonants) has not become widespread in Slavic, unlike the Baltic languages. With regard to gemination, A.V. Dubasova notes that among specialists two positions are indicated - on the one hand, considering this phenomenon as an independent process, on the other, as a genetically common one. With regard to the consonant system, A.V. Dubasova, referring to specialists, although pointing out that there is no consensus on this matter, claims that the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic consonant systems differ in the area of ​​a number of alveolar consonants and a number of dental consonants. All this, in her opinion, allows us to conclude that:

“From the example of the presented phenomena, one can see that the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​“gave preference” to different methods of transformation, using one or another means with varying degrees of intensity; all changes, despite their similarity in the Baltic and Slavic languages, turn out to be independent processes, with different causes and different consequences. Therefore, it is more logical to talk not about “divergence,” but about initially different development - without postulating a common Balto-Slavic proto-language.”

In her work on the general and different in the development of the Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic phonological systems from the Proto-Indo-European, A. V. Dubasova examines some phonetic processes common to the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic languages. Thus, with regard to the assimilation of Indo-European palatopalatals, it indicates that there is no generally accepted opinion according to which the development of Proto-European. palatopalatal in Slavic and Baltic would be identical, but if we adhere, as she claims, to traditional reconstructions (I.-E. *k̂, *ĝ, *ĝh> probalt. *š’, *ž’, Praslav *s’, *z’), then the fate of the pri.-e. palatal rather indicates their independent development in the respective languages. In turn, in an article devoted to the mixing of palatopalatal and dental in the Baltic and Slavic languages, A.V. Dubasova argues that, unlike Proto-Baltic in Proto-Slavic, this mixing did not have a significant impact on the development of consonantism and therefore, as she believes, it can be assumed , that in Proto-Slavic it was in fact not an independent phenomenon, but arose under the influence of Baltic dialects.

Prosody and accentology

Arguments of supporters

1. The disappearance of the difference between primary words in the group of primary words. baritones and oxytones;
2. The emergence of intonations in a group of derivative words, which led to the formation of several intonation-accentuation paradigms;
3. Intonation-accentuation trinity of paradigms in declension and conjugation.

All this, according to E. Kurilovich, represents the strongest arguments in favor of the existence of Balto-Slavic unity in the past.

In turn, the leading member of the Moscow accentological school - V. A. Dybo, a representative of the “post-Illich-Svitychevskaya” Slavic accentology, in one of his works concludes that the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​are descendants of the Balto-Slavic proto-language, since Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic actually had one accent system, which, in his opinion, was impossible to borrow. He emphasizes that the patterns of morphonological (morphophonological) phenomena, as a rule, are not clear to the speaker, and even with contacts of closely related dialects, their morphonological features are only eliminated, but not borrowed. In his article on the study of accent types of derivatives in the Balto-Slavic proto-language, V. A. Dybo argues that the reconstruction of the systems for generating accent types in the Proto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic languages ​​led to the restoration of two proto-language systems, which, in some cases, coincide in word-formation and accentology respect, and in others they represent different parts or “fragments” of the “actually one system” he postulated, and which, in his opinion, can be united in the course of further reconstruction.

The problem of the relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​is most fully considered by V. A. Dybo in his work devoted to Baltic comparative historical and Lithuanian historical accentology. He begins his work by criticizing the position of S. B. Bernstein and concludes that it is difficult to agree with his statement about the secondary convergence of the Slavic and Baltic languages, when they together preserved:

1. the difference between simple voiced stops and voiced aspirates;
2. the distinction between short and long diphthongs and diphthong combinations, which was lost in the rest of the Indo-European languages;
3. the so-called “Bezzenberger combinations”, direct reflections of which are found mainly only in ancient Indian and ancient Greek;
4. register tones, reflected in morphonological phenomena, and which were lost by other Indo-European languages.

At the same time, a general complex of accentological innovations is observed, such as:

1. creation of an identical system of accent paradigms with an identical system for generating accent types of derivatives;
2. delaying the final stress on primary long monophthongs and diphthongs (Hirth’s law);
3. the emergence of the “acute-circumflex” opposition;
4. metatonia “acute → circumflex before dominant suffixes”;
5. Fortunatov-de Saussure law.

Criticism

The methodology of V. A. Dybo in his work “Slavic accentology: Experience in reconstructing the system of accent paradigms in Proto-Slavic” (M.: Nauka, 1981) and the entire Moscow accentological school, based on the “paradigmatic accentology” accepted by them and many other researchers, was subjected to fundamental criticism from Yu. S. Stepanov, who reproaches V. A. Dybo for hypostatizing the role of the root morpheme following Saussure, while in reality “ the connection between the accent type of the derived word and the intonation of the root morpheme is determined by the word-formation type, the word-formation model of the word as a whole, etc.» .

Private observations

With regard to the distribution and use of intonations, E. Kurilovich noted that the morphological structure of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​was identical before the emergence of common intonations. Yu. V. Shevelev points out that the Baltoslavic opposition or the opposition of acute to circumflex and a similar phenomenon in Greek arose independently of each other, after the collapse of the Proto-Indo-European language. H. Stang believed that the Slavic Akut, unlike the Lithuanian, retained the Balto-Slavic nature.

According to L. Moshinsky, a representative of classical Slavic accentology, Balto-Slavic inherited from Proto-Indo-European such two independent prosodic features as strength and longitude, and the third feature - tone, in turn, represents a common Balto-Slavic innovation. At the same time, in “Early Proto-Slavic” (L. Moshinsky’s term), that set of certain Balto-Slavic dialects from which Proto-Slavic developed, an additional feature was added to the distinctive longitude adopted from Proto-Indo-European - a change in the quality of the vowel.

V. A. Dybo, in a number of his works, defends the thesis that the Balto-Slavic accentological system is extremely archaic and, in general, not far removed from the Proto-Indo-European state, while other Indo-European languages ​​either lost or radically changed their accent systems. Also, he points out that perhaps in a number of Indo-European languages ​​some accentological innovations occurred that were also characteristic of Balto-Slavic, such as Hirt’s law in Celto-Italic and metatonia in Greek. S. L. Nikolaev, a representative of the Moscow accentological school, considers the metatony “acute → circumflex before dominant suffixes” as a specific late Proto-Indo-European phenomenon, and with regard to Hirt’s law, he points out that it has a typological parallel in Celto-Italic.

In turn, T. Pronk, in his article on Proto-Indo-European accentuation, analyzing the works of Dybo and a number of other researchers on Balto-Slavic accentuation, notes that, in addition to the ancient Indian ones, it is possible that only Proto-Slavic intonations, but not Baltic ones, directly reflect the Proto-Indo-European tonal system. According to T. Pronk, Proto-Slavic intonations are not an innovation and considering them in this capacity, often as a Balto-Slavic innovation, seems difficult. He also notes that Dybo's observations on accent placement in Proto-Slavic can be better explained if we consider this prosodic phenomenon as originating from accent placement in Proto-Indo-European.

In turn, the Dutch linguist Pepijn Hendricks criticizes representatives of the Moscow accentological school and specifically V. A. Dybo for giving Hirt’s law an uncertain status due to V. A. Dybo’s doubts regarding its applicability to a number of accentological processes in Slavic. In addition, T. G. Khazagerov characterizes Hirt's law as dubious.

Adjacent position

G. Mayer, noting the presence of pure phonological innovations among the dialects of Proto-Baltic, argues that, in contrast, the similarities between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​are of a contact nature and are based on morphological-syntactically determined innovations of an accentological nature. K. Ebeling, a representative of the “post-Illich-Svitychevskaya” Slavic accentology, in his review of the chronology of Slavic accentological processes, argues that the significant similarity between the Slavic and Baltic accentuation systems can be explained by “ similar, but not identical development, starting from the same prim.-e. template» .

According to V. M. Illich-Svitych, although a comparison of the Slavic and Baltic systems of accentuation paradigms of the name leads to the conclusion about their identity, it is nevertheless difficult to say whether such a commonality indicates the existence of a Balto-Slavic system of accentuation paradigms of the name, since the mobility of stress in Baltic and Slavic may be a Proto-Indo-European archaism, and as for the delay of the final stress (Hirth's law), this indeed represents an innovation, but also found in Celto-Italic.

In turn, Thomas Olander, while confirming the significant similarity of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​in his research in the field of accentology, nevertheless points out that such joint innovations can be interpreted in different ways, both within the framework of a single Baltic-Slavic proto-language and within the framework of close communication between the predecessor dialects of the Slavic and Baltic languages. At the same time, he believes that it is methodologically acceptable to treat the Balto-Slavic proto-language as a simple model for describing the common heritage of the Slavic and Baltic languages, although the relationship between their predecessor dialects could be much more complex.

Arguments of opponents

The famous Soviet accentologist L. A. Bulakhovsky, a representative of classical Slavic accentology, discussing in a number of his works the issue of Balto-Slavic relations, following N. V. Van Wijk, believes that the Fortunatov-de Saussure law may be a phenomenon of parallel development in both languages. As for Hirt's law, in his opinion, in reality there is no reliable basis for accepting the operation of this law in Slavic, although Lehr-Splavinsky's amendment to Hirt's law, formulated for the Proto-Slavic language, makes its operation in Slavic more probable. A number of other convergences of an accentological nature, such as metatonia, as he notes, do not seem convincing. Regarding the nature of intonations, L. A. Bulakhovsky claims that “ within each of the compared language groups, changes (even direct opposition) are no less than between them as a whole» .

Morphology and syntax

Arguments of supporters

On the part of supporters of the genetic relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages, the following arguments were proposed based on morphological and syntactic features:

Criticism

With regard to a number of these arguments, opponents of supporters of the genetic relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages, the following critical remarks were given:

Arguments of opponents

In turn, opponents of the existence of a genetic relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​pointed out those morphological features that, from their point of view, prove the absence of a corresponding connection between the Slavic and Baltic languages:

1. Baltic uses the suffix -mo in ordinal numbers, whereas in Slavic numbers the suffix is ​​used -wo(as in Indo-Iranian and Tocharian).
2. Suffix -es, used in the formation of names of body parts in Hittite and Proto-Slavic, is not used in the Baltic languages.
3. Slavic perfect *vĕdĕ, going back to the primordial era. perfect *u̯oi̯da(i̯), represents an archaism without a Baltic correspondence.
4. The Slavic imperative *jьdi continues the prim.-e. *i-dhí, which is not known in Baltic.
5. Slavic suffix of verbal nouns -tel-(close to Hittite -talla) is not used in the Baltic languages.
6. Slavic participles on -lъ, which have corresponding parallels in Armenian and Tocharian, are not known to the Baltic languages.
7. Suffix of Baltic verbs 1 l. units hours present V. -mai, while in Slavic this is not the case.
8. In Baltic languages ​​the infix is ​​often used -sto-, while in Slavic it is absent.
9. Baltic adjective suffix -inga
10. Baltic diminutive suffix -l- not used in Slavic languages.
11. Proto-Baltic did not differentiate between unit forms. h. and pl. h. in verbs 3 l., while in Proto-Slavic this difference was preserved.
12. Inflections 3rd year. units - pl. h. in Slavic well reflects the formants of the pri.-e. -t: -nt, missing from Baltic.
13. Proto-Slavic suffix of participles -no- not used in Baltic languages.
14. Slavic languages ​​have retained their original e.g. aorist on -s-(sigmatic aorist), while no traces of it have been found in the Baltic languages.
15. Proto-Slavic cardinal numerals of the large quantitative ( five six,… etc.) have the suffix -tь, while no traces of it have been found in the Baltic languages.

Vocabulary and semantics

Arguments of supporters

Szemerényi, in one of his fourteen points, pointed out a significant commonality of vocabulary not observed between other branches of the Indo-European languages. Moreover, more than 200 words in the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​are exclusive convergences.

In turn, M. N. Saenko, proposing a new method of using lexicostatistics, argues that in the basic vocabulary of Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic there is a large number of common innovations, which, as the author believes, can serve as a compelling argument for confirming the existence of Balto-Slavic unity.

Criticism

According to opponents of genetic kinship, a significant part of these lexemes can be explained as separate Indo-European archaisms, bilateral borrowings or areal convergences. They also point out the ignorance, on the part of their opponents, of the phenomena of the substrate, which are associated with ethnic mixtures between the Balts and Slavs, who actively contacted each other in the past.

Private observations

Arguments of opponents

Opponents of genetic kinship, for their part, argue about deep differences between Baltic and Slavic at the lexical and semantic level, revealing an ancient character. In particular, such important concepts, according to opponents, as “lamb”, “egg”, “beat”, “flour”, “belly”, “maiden”, “valley”, “oak”, “hollow”, “ dove", "lord", "guest", "forge (blacksmith)", are expressed in different words in the Baltic and Slavic languages.

Notes

Comments

Sources

1. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, pp. 152-163
2. B. Wimer. The fate of Balto-Slavic hypotheses and today's contact linguistics. // Areal and genetic in the structure of Slavic languages. - M.: “Probel”, Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2007, pp. 32-33
3. Trubachev O. N. Ethnogenesis and culture of the ancient Slavs: Linguistic studies. - M.: Nauka, 2003, pp. 19-20
4. Zhuravlev V.K. Slavic languages ​​// Comparative-historical study of languages ​​of different families. Current status and problems. M.: Nauka, 1981, pp. 102-104
5. Shcheglova O. G. Comparative-historical grammar of Slavic languages. Course of lectures // Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2011, pp. 25-29
6. Birnbaum H Questions of linguistics, 1985, No. 2, pp. 35-36
7. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, pp. 153-154
8. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, p. 153
9. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, pp. 154-155
10. Juozas Jurkenas, Relationships between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​in the light of onomastic studies // Acta Baltico-Slavica, 2006, No. 30, p. 261
11. Bernstein S. B. Comparative grammar of Slavic languages: textbook / 2nd ed. M.: Publishing house Moscow. University: Nauka, 2005, p. thirty
12. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, pp. 158-159
13. Birnbaum H. On two directions in language development // Questions of linguistics, 1985, No. 2, p. 36
14. Questions of linguistics, 1959, No. 1. - P. 140
15. Illich-Svitych V.M. Balto-Slavic issues at the IV International Congress of Slavists // Questions of linguistics, 1959, No. 1. - P. 139
16. Ler-Splavinsky T.
17. Bernstein S. B. The answer to the question “Did Balto-Slavic linguistic and ethnic unity exist and how should it be understood?” // Collection of answers to questions on linguistics (for the IV International Congress of Slavists). - M., 1958.
18. Novotná P., Blažek V. Baltistica XLIII (2).- Vilnius, 2007. - p. 204. (English)
19. Novotná P., Blažek V. Glottochronology and its application to Balto-Slavic lanuages ​​// Baltistica XLIII (2).- Vilnius, 2007. - pp. 205, 208. (English)
20. Origin and family ties of the languages peoples of Russia
21. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, pp. 152-153
22. Zhuravlev V.K. Slavic languages ​​// Comparative-historical study of languages ​​of different families. Current status and problems. M.: Nauka, 1981, pp. 102-103
23. Shcheglova O. G. Comparative-historical grammar of Slavic languages. Course of lectures // Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2011, p. 25
24. Oleg Polyakov, Moscow linguistic school and traditions of modern Baltic studies // Acta Baltico-Slavica. 2006, no. 30, p. 114
25. Bernstein S. B. Comparative grammar of Slavic languages: textbook / 2nd ed. M.: Publishing house Moscow. University: Nauka, 2005, p. 28-29
26. Zhuravlev V.K. Slavic languages ​​// Comparative-historical study of languages ​​of different families. Current status and problems. M.: Nauka, 1981, p. 103
27. Shcheglova O. G. Comparative-historical grammar of Slavic languages. Course of lectures // Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2011, p. 26
28. Bernstein S. B. Comparative grammar of Slavic languages: textbook / 2nd ed. M.: Publishing house Moscow. University: Nauka, 2005, p. 29
29. Shcheglova O. G. Comparative-historical grammar of Slavic languages. Course of lectures // Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2011, p. 27
30. Daniel Petit, Les langues baltiques et la question balto-slave // ​​Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage, 26/2, 2004, p. 24
31. Shcheglova O. G. Comparative-historical grammar of Slavic languages. Course of lectures // Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2011, pp. 27-28
32. B. Wimer. The fate of Balto-Slavic hypotheses and today's contact linguistics. // Areal and genetic in the structure of Slavic languages. - M.: “Probel”, Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2007, pp. 31, 33, 34-35
33. Klimas A. Balto-Slavic or Baltic and Slavic // Lituanus.- 1967. - Vol. 13. - No. 2.
34. Martynov V.V. Glottogenesis of the Slavs: experience of verification in comparative studies. // Questions of linguistics. 1985. No. 6.
35. William R. Schmalstieg, Review “Rainer Eckert, Elvira-Julia Bukevičiūtė, Friedhelm Hinze. Die baltischen Sprachen: Eine Einfuhrung. Lepzig, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, New York: Langenscheidt, Verlag Enzyklopädie 1994, pp. 416." // Lituanus.- 1995. - Vol. 41. - No. 2.
36. Dybo V. A. Baltic comparative historical and Lithuanian historical accentology // Aspects of comparative studies/ Ed. A. V. Dybo, V. A. Dybo et al. M., 2005. RSUH (Orientalia et Classica: Proceedings of the Institute of Oriental Cultures and Antiquity. Issue VI). pp. 178-179
37. Yuri Tambovtsev, Phono-typological distances between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​// Acta Baltico Slavica, No. 35, 2011
38. Yuri Tambovtsev, Phono-typological distances between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​// Acta Baltico Slavica, No. 35, 2011, pp. 154–155
39. Harvey E. Mayer Was Slavic a Prussian Dialect? // Lituanus.- 1987. - Vol. 33. - No. 2.
40. Trubachev O. N. Ethnogenesis and culture of the ancient Slavs: Linguistic studies. - M.: Nauka, 2003. - p. 20
41. Birnbaum N. The issue of Balto-Slavic revisited // ΠΟΛΥΤΡΟΠΟΝ. To the 70th anniversary of Vladimir Nikolaevich Toporov. M.: Publishing house "Indrik", 1998. - p. 130
42. Birnbaum H. Slavic, Tocharian, Altai: genetic connection and areal-typological influence // Questions of linguistics. - 2003. - No. 5. - pp. 6-7
43. Ivanov, Vyach. Sun. Linguistic problems of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs in the light of the relationship of Slavic to the Baltic and other Indo-European languages. // Complex problems of history and culture of the peoples of Central and South-Eastern Europe: Results and prospects of research. Moscow, 1979, p. 28
44. Georgiev V. Balto-Slavic and Tocharian language // Questions of linguistics, 1958, No. 3, pp. 8, 13
45. Portzig V. Division of the Indo-European language area. M.: Foreign publishing house. lit., 1964, p. 103

The Baltic languages ​​are a group of Indo-European languages. In 1985, approximately 4,850 thousand people were native speakers of languages ​​of the Baltic language group. The Baltic languages ​​preserve the ancient Indo-European language system more fully than other modern groups of the Indo-European family of languages. There is a point of view according to which the Baltic languages ​​represent a remnant of ancient Indo-European speech, preserved after the separation of other Indo-European languages ​​from this family. Within the group of ancient Indo-European dialects, the Baltic languages ​​gravitate towards its eastern part (Indo-Iranian, Slavic and other languages), the “satem” languages ​​(those in which the Indo-European back tongues are represented as sibilants). At the same time, the Baltic languages ​​participate in a number of innovations characteristic of the so-called Central European languages. Therefore, it is advisable to talk about the intermediate (transitional) status of the Baltic languages ​​in the continuum of ancient Indo-European dialects (it is significant that the Baltic languages ​​are precisely the zone in which “satemization” was carried out with the least completeness among other languages ​​of the “satem” group). The Baltic languages ​​are especially close to the Slavic languages. The exceptional closeness of these two language groups (in some cases one can speak of diachronic similarity or even identity) is explained in different ways: by belonging to the same group of Indo-European dialects, which were in close proximity and experienced a number of common processes that continued the trends of Indo-European development; the relatively late territorial convergence of speakers of the Baltic languages ​​and Slavic languages, which led to the convergence of the corresponding languages, as a result of which many common elements were developed; the presence of a common Balto-Slavic language, the ancestor of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​(the most common point of view); finally, the original inclusion of Slavic languages ​​in the group of Baltic languages, from which they emerged relatively late (on the southern periphery of the Baltic area); from this point of view, the Baltic languages ​​act as the ancestor of the Slavic languages, coexisting in time and space with their descendant. Close genetic ties unite the Baltic languages ​​with the ancient Indo-European languages ​​of the Balkans (Illyrian, Thracian, etc.).

The distribution area of ​​modern Baltic languages ​​is limited to the eastern Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, the northeastern part of Poland - Suvalkija, partly Belarus). At an earlier time, the Baltic languages ​​were also widespread in the southern Baltic region (in its eastern part, in the territory of East Prussia), where until the beginning of the 18th century, remnants of the Prussian language were preserved, and to the east, apparently, the Yatvingian language. Judging by the data of toponymy (especially hydronymy), Baltisms in Slavic languages, archaeological and historical data itself, in the 1st millennium - early. 2nd millennium AD e. The Baltic languages ​​were widespread over a vast territory to the south and southeast of the Baltic states - in the Upper Dnieper region and up to the right tributaries of the upper region. Volga, Upper and Middle Poochye (including the western part of the Moscow River basin and the territory of modern Moscow), river. Seim in the southeast and the river. Pripyat in the south (although undisputed Balticisms are also noted to the south of it). One can speak of a Baltic element to the west of the Vistula - in Pomerania and Mecklenburg, although the origin of these Balticisms is not always clear. A number of toponomastic isoglosses unite the Baltic area with Pannonia, the Balkans and the Adriatic coast. The peculiarities of the distribution area of ​​the Baltic languages ​​in ancient times explain the traces of linguistic contacts of the Balts with the Finno-Ugrians, Iranians, Thracians, Illyrians, Germans, etc.

Modern Baltic languages ​​are represented by the Lithuanian language and the Latvian language (sometimes the Latgalian language is also emphasized, which, according to some sources, is only a dialect of the Latvian language). The extinct Baltic languages ​​include: Prussian (East Prussia), whose speakers lost their language and switched to German; Yatvingian (north-eastern Poland, Southern Lithuania, adjacent regions of Belarus - Grodno region - etc.; its remnants apparently existed until the 18th century), some traces of which were preserved in the speech of Lithuanians, Poles and Belarusians of the named area; Curonian (on the Baltic Sea coast within modern Lithuania and Latvia), which disappeared by the middle. 17th century and left traces in the corresponding dialects of Latvian, as well as Lithuanian and Livonian languages; Selonian (or Selian), which was spoken in parts of Eastern Latvia and North-Eastern Lithuania, as can be judged from documents from the 13th-15th centuries; Galindian (or Golyadsky, in the south of Prussia and, apparently, in the Moscow region, on the Protva River), which can only be judged by a small amount of toponymic material localized in Galindia (according to documents of the 14th century) and, probably, in the Protva basin ( sometimes it is believed that it is simply a dialect of the Prussian language). The name of the language or languages ​​of the Baltic population in the East Slavic territories remains unknown. There is no doubt, however, that the languages ​​of the Yatvingians and Galinds (Golyad) were close to Prussian and, possibly, were its dialects. They should be classified, together with the Prussian language, among the Western Baltic languages, in contrast to Lithuanian and Latvian (as Eastern Baltic). Perhaps it is more correct to talk about the languages ​​of the outer zone of the Baltic area (Prussian in the extreme west, Galindian to Yatvingian in the extreme south and, possibly, in the east), contrasted with the relatively compact core of the “inner” zone (Lithuanian and Latvian), where “cross-language” lines are significant connections (for example, Lower Lithic and Lower Latvian, respectively Upper Lithic and Upper Latvian dialects). The Baltic languages ​​of the outer belt had previously undergone Slavicization and became entirely part of the substrate in the Polish and East Slavic languages, completely dissolving into them. It is characteristic that it was these Baltic languages ​​and the corresponding tribes that first became known to ancient writers. The general name of the Indo-European languages ​​of the Baltic region as Baltic was introduced in 1845 by G. F. Nesselman.

The phonological structure of a language is determined by a number of common features that are realized on approximately the same composition of phonemes (the number of phonemes in Lithuanian is slightly larger than in Latvian). The phoneme system in Lithuanian and Latvian (and, apparently, Prussian) is described by a common set of differential features. The contrasts between palatal and non-palatal (such as k" : k, g" : g, n": n are significant; in the Lithuanian language the volume of this opposition is much larger than in Latvian), simple consonants and affricates (c,c,), tense and unstressed (e: ,i: ie, u: o); phonemes f, x (also c and dz in Lithuanian and dz in Latvian) are peripheral and are found, as a rule, in borrowings. The similarity in the organization of the prosodic level of the Baltic languages ​​is important, with that the stress in the Lithuanian language is free, and in Latvian it is stabilized on the initial syllable (Finnish influence).Vowel phonemes differ in length - brevity (cf. Latvian virs “above” - virs “husband” or Lithuanian butas “apartment” - butas “former”). Intonation contrasts are characteristic of both Lithuanian and Latvian, although they are implemented differently in specific conditions. The rules for the distribution of phonemes in the Baltic languages ​​are relatively uniform, especially at the beginning of a word (where the accumulation of no more than three consonants is allowed, cf. str -, spr-, spl-, skl-...); the distribution of consonants at the end of a word is somewhat more complicated due to the loss of final vowels in a number of morphological forms. A syllable can be either open or closed; the vocal center of a syllable can consist of any vowel phoneme and diphthongs (ai, au, ei, ie, ui).

The morphonology of a verb is characterized by quantitative and qualitative alternation of vowels, name - movement of accent, change of intonation, etc. The maximum (morphological) composition of a word is described by a model of the form: negation + prefix + ... + root + ... + suffix + ... + inflection, where prefix, root and suffix can appear more than once (sometimes we can talk about complex inflection, for example, in pronominal adjectives, cf. Latvian balt-aj-ai). The most typical situations of “doubling”: aspect prefix + “lexical” prefix; root + root in two-syllable words, suffix + suffix (most often in the following order: objective assessment suffix + subjective assessment suffix). The Baltic languages ​​have an exceptional wealth of suffixal inventory (especially for conveying diminutive - augmentative, endearment - pejorative).

The morphological structure of a name in the Baltic languages ​​is characterized by the categories of gender (masculine and feminine with traces of the neuter, especially in one of the well-known dialects of the Prussian language), number (singular - plural; examples of the dual number are known), case (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumentalis, locative, all of them are contrasted with a special vocative form; the influence of the Finnish-language substrate explains the existence in Lithuanian dialects of the forms allative, illative, adessive), compound/uncompounded (primarily in adjectives - full and short forms, but sometimes in other classes of words) , gradualism (3 degrees of comparison in adjectives). In the declension of nouns, there are 5 types of stems - conventionally - -o-, -a-, -i-, -u- and consonant. Along with the nominal type of declension, there is also a pronominal type, which plays a special role in the declension of adjectives. For a verb, in addition to the category of numbers, the following are essential: person (1st, 2nd, 3rd), tense (present, past, future), mood (indicative, conditional, desirable, imperative; obligatory and retelling have developed in the Latvian language moods, obviously under the influence of the Finnish-language substrate), voice (active, reflexive, passive). Differences in type (including all shades of the course of action - initiality, terminativity, iterativeness, etc.) and in causativeness/non-causativeness are more appropriate to be considered as facts of word formation. The verb paradigm is characterized by a simple structure, which is facilitated by the neutralization of opposition by numbers in the 3rd person forms (in some dialects, for example in Tam, opposition by persons is also neutralized), which can sometimes be expressed by zero inflection, and especially by the presence of a single (in principle) inflection schemes describing the personal forms of the verb in express. inclination. Different combinations of personal forms of the auxiliary verb with participles give rise to a variety of complex types of tenses and moods.

Syntactic connections between sentence elements in the Baltic languages ​​are expressed by forms of inflection, non-independent words and adjacency. The core of the sentence is a noun in the nominative + a verb in the personal form. Each of these two members can be absent (for example, in the absence of a verb, noun phrases arise) or expanded (for example, a noun group can be expanded into an adjective + noun, or a noun + noun, or a preposition + a noun or pronoun, etc.; a verb group unfolds into verb + adverb, personal verb + personal verb, etc.). These deployment rules can be applied more than once. Their implementation is connected, in particular, with the order of words in the phrase. Thus, usually the verb group follows the noun group in the nominative; in the group of a personal non-linking verb, the non-nominative noun group follows the personal non-linking verb; in the noun group, all case forms follow the noun in the genitive if they are associated with it (this rule has a high degree of probability and is significant due to the fact that the genitive in the Baltic languages ​​is capable of expressing a wide variety of syntactic relations - almost almost all, except those which are characteristic of the nominative; hence the exclusive role of the genitive in syntactic transformations).

The vast majority of semantic areas in the Lithuanian and Latvian languages ​​(also in Prussian) are provided by the original vocabulary of Indo-European origin. This allows us, in a number of cases, to talk about an almost unified dictionary of the Baltic languages. Particularly complete correspondence is observed in the composition of word-forming elements, function words, pronominal elements, main semantic spheres (numerals, kinship names, body parts, names of plants, animals, landscape elements, celestial bodies, elementary actions, etc.). Differences in this area are rather a matter of exceptions (cf. Lithuanian sunus “son”, Prussian souns, but Latvian dels or Lithuanian dukte “daughter”, Prussian duckti, but Latvian meita or Lithuanian duona “ bread"; Latvian maize, Prussian geits or Lithuanian akmuo “stone"", Latvian akmens, but Prussian stabis, etc.). The lexical commonality of the Baltic languages ​​with the Slavic languages ​​is very large. It is explained both by the common origin and archaic nature of both language groups, and by a significant layer of Slavic borrowings in the Baltic languages ​​(terms of a socio-economic and religious nature, everyday and professional vocabulary, etc.). A considerable number of Germanisms penetrated into the Lithuanian and especially the Latvian languages ​​(in the latter, more often in dialects, there is also a significant layer of borrowings from Finno-Ugric languages). Many lexical internationalisms are not only directly from the source language, but also through Russian, Polish or German.

Lithuanian

Lithuanian language is one of the Baltic languages. There are 2 main dialects - Samogitian and Aukštaitskiy. The Lithuanian language has preserved ancient features in phonetics and morphology better than other living Indo-European languages. It differs from the closely related Latvian language by being more archaic (in general) and by some innovations. The Lithuanian language preserves the ancient k", g", corresponding to the Latvian affricates (akys "eye", gerti "drink", cf. Latvian acis, dzert), initial pj, bj (piauti "reap", cf. Latvian plaut), tautosyllabic an, en, in, un. The latter feature is associated with the preservation of the nasal infix in the conjugation of the Lithuanian language, lost in Latvian.

Lithuanian is an inflectional (fusional) language with elements of agglutination and analyticism. Nouns are divided into two concordant classes (neuter gender is lost). Three gender forms are retained in some pronouns, as well as in adjectives and participles. The category of number is formed by the opposition of two series of forms - units. and many more numbers (in some dialects the dual number is retained). The case paradigm includes 6 cases and a special vocative form. The category of definiteness/indeterminacy finds morphological expression in adjectives (and participles) that distinguish between simple (non-member, non-pronominal) and complex (member, pronominal) forms.

The verb is characterized by a wealth of various participial formations that have a wide syntactic use. Specific verbal categories are tense, voice, mood, person (personal inflections simultaneously express numerical meaning; the conjugated form of the 3rd person does not know numerical differences). There are 4 simple (synthetic) forms of grammatical tense: present, past singular, past multiple and future. Combinations of the verb buti “to be” with participles (of various tense and voice forms) form a system of complex (analytical) tenses. The passive voice is formed using passive participles. The analytical passive is contrasted both with the corresponding complex forms with active participles and with simple (synthetic) personal forms, which always belong to the active voice. The system of moods distinguishes between indicative, subjunctive, imperative and “indirect” (the distinction of the latter is not generally accepted). The indirect mood (comparable to the “retelling” mood of the Latvian language is expressed by participles of the active voice in predicative use. Aspect as a grammatical category of the Slavic type is absent in the Lithuanian language. The expression of various aspectual meanings is associated with the semantic-word-formation meaning of the verbal lexeme and with a specific tense form, in which it appears in. The main aspectual classification of verbal lexemes divides them into 2 classes: procedural and evental (eigos veikslas and ivykio veikslas - the translation of these terms into Russian as “non-sov. view” and “sov. view” can be misleading). other semantic word-formation classes are associated with differences in transitivity, reflexivity, etc. A feature of the Lithuanian language is the presence among transitive verbs, along with causative verbs, of a special class of so-called curative verbs.

The Lithuanian language is a nominative language. The common order of the components of a simple sentence is SVO, although modifications of this order are possible, associated, in particular, with actual division. To express possessive relationships, constructions such as “I have” are widely used, which are correlated with the Latvian constructions tapa “I have”. Constructions with participial formations equivalent to a complex sentence have been preserved.

Writing appeared in the 16th century. based on Latin graphics. The first Lithuanian book is the catechism of M. Mažvydas (1547). The beginning of the development of the Lithuanian language dates back to the 16th-17th centuries. During this period, in addition to books of religious content, works of a philological nature appeared, incl. grammar of the Lithuanian language by D. Klein (1653,1654). The unified Lithuanian language was formed in the late 19th - early. 20th centuries based on the Western Aukštait dialect. J. Jablonskis played a major role in the creation and normalization of the Lithuanian language.

Latvian

Latvian is the second of the two Baltic languages ​​that have survived to this day. The Latvian language has three dialects: Middle Latvian (in the central part of Latvia), which is the basis of the Lithuanian language, Livonian (in S. Kurzeme and Northwestern Vidzeme, where the Livs used to live, under the influence of whose language this dialect was formed), Upper Latvian (in the east parts of Latvia; this dialect, called Latgalian dialects or the Latgalian language in the territory of Latgale, experienced significant Slavic influence; books and newspapers were published in these dialects in 1730-1865 and 1904-1959).

Unlike the Lithuanian language, the Latvian language has a fixed stress on the first syllable (probably the influence of the Finno-Ugric substrate). In the final syllables of polysyllabic words, long vowels are shortened, diphthongs are monophthongized, and short vowels (except u) are dropped. Ancient tautosyllabic (relating to one syllable) combinations underwent changes an>uo, en>ie, in>i, un>u; before front vowels there are consonants k>c, g>dz. The contrast between the back and middle lingual consonants k-k, g-g is characteristic. In long syllables (i.e., in syllables containing long vowels, diphthongs and tautosyllabic combinations of vowels with m, n, n, l, l, r) ancient syllabic intonations are preserved: long (mate “mother”), intermittent (meita “ daughter"), descending (ruoka "hand"). In morphology, the neuter gender and forms of the dual number have been lost, the ancient instrumental case coincided in the singular. number with accusative, in plural. number - with dative. Adjectives with a stem ending in u have been lost. Definite and indefinite forms of adjectives have been preserved. The verb is characterized by simple and complex forms of present, past and future tense; inability to distinguish number in the 3rd person. The original obligatory and retelling moods have emerged. In a sentence, the word order is free, the SVO order prevails, the defined comes after the definition. The main vocabulary is originally Baltic. Borrowings from Germanic languages, especially Middle Low German (elle “hell”, muris “stone wall”; stunda “hour”), from Slavic languages, mainly Russian (bloda “bowl”, sods “punishment”, greks “sin”), from the Baltic languages. -Fin. Languages ​​(kazas “wedding”, puika “boy”), etc.

Writing based on the Latin Gothic script appeared in the 16th century. (the first book is the Catholic Catechism of 1585). The language of the first books written by German pastors who had little command of the Latvian language and used the orthography of the Southern German language does not reflect well the morphological structure and phonetic system of the Latvian language. Therefore, the study of dialects, as well as folk art (especially songs), plays an important role in the history of the Latvian language. The Latvian language was formed in the 2nd half of the 19th century. The basis of modern Latvian graphics is the Latin alphabet (antiqua) with additional diacritics; spelling is based on phonemic-morphological. principle.

Prussian language

Prussian is one of the extinct Baltic languages ​​(Western Baltic group). Sometimes called Old Prussian to distinguish it from the Prussian dialects of the German language. The Prussian language was spoken in the south-eastern Baltic region, east of the Vistula, from the beginning. By the 2nd millennium, the territory of its distribution was shrinking. By the beginning of the 18th century. The Prussian language became extinct, the descendants of the Prussians switched to German.

Monuments: Elbing German-Prussian Dictionary (just over 800 words), ca. 1400; Prussian-German dictionary by Simon Grunau (approx. 100 words), beginning. 16th century; 3 catechisms in Prussian (translation from German): 1545 (1st and 2nd catechisms), 1561 (3rd, the so-called Enchiridion, the most extensive text in the Prussian language); individual words and phrases preserved in descriptions of the Prussians; Prussian poetic inscription (2 lines), ser. 14th century Information about the Prussian language is also provided by toponymy and anthroponymy, partly by Prussian borrowings in Prussian dialects of the German language, in Polish and West Lithuanian dialects. All monuments reflect the results of strong German and earlier Polish influence, and the Prussian language itself appears in a significantly changed form.

There are 2 dialects: Pomezanian (more western, which can be judged from the Elbing Dictionary) and Samlandic or Sambian (more eastern, in which all catechisms are written).

Phonetics is characterized by the opposition of vowels in length and shortness, a relatively simple system of consonants, free stress, phonologically significant opposition of intonations, a tendency to palatalization and labialization of consonants, to mixing sibilants with sibilants, to diphthongization in certain conditions of long vowels. In morphology, a name distinguishes the categories of number, gender (in the Pomesanian dialect there is also a neuter gender), case (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative; there is a tendency to develop a “general” case); the verb is characterized by the categories of number (essentially non-distinction of numbers in the 3rd line), person, tense (present, past, future), mood (indicative, imperative, maybe optative and conditionalis), some aspect characteristics are noted. It is more difficult to judge the syntactic features of the Prussian language due to the translated nature of the monuments. The vocabulary contains a large number of Polish and German borrowings. In a number of respects, the Prussian language reveals a special closeness to the Slavic languages.

Learning Baltic languages

The complex of philological sciences that study the Baltic languages, the material and spiritual culture of the Baltic-speaking peoples is called Baltic Studies. In Baltic studies, a distinction is made between an area associated with the study of the Baltic languages, folklore, mythology, etc. as a whole, and private areas devoted to individual Baltic traditions: Pruthenistics (Prussistics), Lettonistics, Lithuanianistics.

The leading direction in Baltic studies is the study of the Baltic languages, the history of the study of which begins in the 17th century, when the first dictionaries and experiments in grammatical description of individual languages ​​appeared, pursuing mainly practical goals. The best of them in the 17th century. There were for the Lithuanian language a grammar by D. Klein and a dictionary by K. Sirvydas (Širvydas), for the Latvian language there was a grammar by G. Adolfi and dictionaries by H. Füreker and J. Langia. The tradition of describing grammar and vocabulary continued until about the middle. 19th century (F.V. Haak, F. Ruig, G. Ostermeyer, K. Mielke, S. Stanevichus, K. Kossakovsky and others for the Lithuanian language; G.F. Stender, J. Lange, K. Harder, G. Rosenberger , G. Hesselberg and others for the Latvian language).

The new stage begins in mid. 19th century, when the works of R.K. Raska, F. Boppa, A.F. Pott introduces the Baltic languages ​​into the mainstream of comparative historical linguistics and Indo-European studies. Works on the Prussian language (Bopp, F. Nesselman), Lithuanian (A. Schleicher), and Latvian (A. Bilenstein) appeared. In subsequent decades, the comparative historical study of the Baltic languages ​​became dominant in Baltic linguistics (I. Schmidt, A. Leskin, A. Bezzenberger, L. Heitler, E. Bernecker, F.F. Fortunatov, G.K. Ulyanov, V.K. Porzhezinski, O. Wiedemann, J. Zubaty, I. Mikkola, etc.). The needs for a more thorough interpretation of the facts of the Baltic languages ​​within the framework of comparative historical research, as well as the practical needs for the development of standard forms of the language, have revived interest in the synchronic study of the Baltic languages. At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. the first works of J. Endzelin appear, who made an exceptional contribution to the study of the Baltic languages ​​(fundamental grammar of the Latvian language, participation in the Mühlenbach dictionary, study of the extinct Baltic languages, in particular Prussian and Curonian, works on Balto-Slavic linguistic connections, accentology, history and dialectology , on comparative grammar of the Baltic languages, in the field of etymology and toponymy, etc.). The works of K. Bugi are of great importance for the study of the history of the Lithuanian language, extinct Baltic languages, their comparative historical study, for etymology, toponomastics and vocabulary. The study of the Baltic languages ​​and their connections with Slavic and other Indo-European languages ​​was carried out by R. Trautman (“Balto-Slavic Dictionary”), J. Gerulis, E. Frenkel (“Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary”), K. Stang (the first “Comparative Grammar of the Baltic languages", 1966), H. Pedersen, T. Thorbjörnsson, M. Vasmer, E. Herman, E. Nieminen, E. Kurilovich, J. Otrembsky, P. Arumaa, V. Kiparsky, A. Zenn, J. Balchikonis, P. Skardjus, A. Salis, P. Jonikas, J. Plakis, E. Blese, A. Augstkalnis, A. Abele, V. Ruke-Dravina, K. Dravins, V. Majulis, Z. Zinkevičius, J. Kazlauskas, Viach.Sun. Ivanov, V. Zeps, U. Schmalstieg (Smolstieg), B. Egers and others. A new stage in the development of Baltic studies is associated with the creation of fundamental works on lexicology and dialectology, in particular dialectological atlases, on descriptive grammar and history of the Baltic languages, on toponymy and onomastics. In the field of folkloristics, a huge amount of material has been accumulated, collected in multi-volume editions of folk literature texts. On this basis, numerous private studies are being developed and general Baltic problems are increasingly being put forward (comparative metrics, poetics, historical and mythological interpretation, connections with Indo-European sources, etc. ).

The study of the Prussian language (Prutenistics) began at the end. 17th century (H. Hartknoch, 1679), but interest in him was renewed only in the 20s. 19th century (S. Vater, 1821, S.B. Linde, 1822, P. von Bohlen, 1827) and was associated both with a romantic interest in the archaic and with the formation of comparative historical linguistics. Bopp's work (1853) on the Prussian language in comparative terms is characteristic. All R. 19th century the greatest contribution to the study of the Baltic languages ​​was made by Nesselman (in particular, a dictionary of the Prussian language, 1873); At the same time, the collection of toponomastic materials begins (W. Pearson, J. Voigt, M. Teppen, Bezzenberger, etc.). The latter has great merit in the textual study of monuments of the Prussian language and in the interpretation of many linguistic facts in the next period (late 19th - early 20th centuries). At the end of the 19th century. grammars of the Prussian language appear (Berneker, 1896, W. Schulze, 1897), phonetic, accentological, morphological and etymological studies (Fortunatov, F. de Saussure, A. Juryukner, K. Uhlenbeck, Mikkola, E. Levi, F. Lorenz , F. Kluge, etc.). In 1910, Trautmann's fundamental description of the Prussian language was published, which included the publication of texts and a complete dictionary for them. Later, he published a dictionary of Prussian personal names (1925), which, together with Gerulis’s dictionary of Prussian place names (1922), significantly expanded the understanding of the vocabulary of the Prussian language. These two scientists (like Bezzenberger and especially Buge) were responsible for the first studies in the field of dialectology of the Prussian language. At this time, N. Van Wijk was successfully studying phonetics and morphology (1918), and the works of Endzelin, Herman and others were published. In the 20-30s. 20th century works are being created on specific issues of the Prussian language (mainly Endzelin, as well as E. Benveniste, van Wijk, Specht, Stang, J. Bonfante. E. Mikalauskaitė, I. Matusevičiūtė, etc.), but in general interest in the Prussian language decreases significantly . An exception is Endzelin's book on the Prussian language (1943, 1944), which is distinguished by the accuracy and rigor of specific conclusions based on a detailed study of graphics. In the 40-50s. Only rare studies appear in this area (T. Milevsky, L. Zabrotsky, German).

The beginning of the modern stage in the development of prutenistics dates back to the 60s, when the number of studies increased, interpretation methods deepened, and important results were achieved. A special place is occupied by the works and publications of Majulis (cf. “Monuments of the Prussian language”, 1966-81, and an etymological dictionary prepared for publication) and Schmalstieg (“Grammar of the Prussian language and additions to it”, 1974, 1976). Since 1975, V.N.’s dictionary of the Prussian language began to be published. Toporova. In the 70-80s. The Prussian language is studied by Stang, Kiparsky, V.P. Schmidt, H. Gurnovich, J.F. Levin, A.P. Nekukupny, Ivanov, V. Smochinsky and others. The new stage in the development of Prutenistics is characterized by interest in the “extinct” small Baltic languages, known only from very scanty data (individual words, usually personal and local names). The Yatvingian language, which is close to Prussian, is being studied (works of L. Nalepa, Toporov, Otrembsky, etc.); interest in the Galinda language revived. After the classical works of Endzelin and Kiparsky, the attention of a number of researchers again turns to the Curonian language. Dialectologists are trying to identify the sound features and lexemes of the extinct Curonian, Zemgallian, and Selonian languages ​​in modern dialects of the Baltic languages.

BALTIC LANGUAGES, a branch of the Indo-European languages. According to toponymy, the presence of Baltic words in Slavic languages, archaeological and historical data (see the article Baltic), in the 1st - early 2nd millennium AD, the Baltic languages ​​were widespread over a vast territory to the south and southeast of the Baltic states - in the Upper Dnieper region and up to the right tributaries of the upper Volga, Upper and Middle Poochya (including the western part of the Moscow River basin and the territory of modern Moscow), the Seim River in the southeast and the Pripyat River in the south (Balticisms are also noted south of it) . One can speak of a Baltic element to the west of the Vistula - in Pomerania and Mecklenburg, although the origin of these Balticisms is not always clear. The peculiarities of the area of ​​the Baltic languages ​​in ancient times explain the traces of linguistic contacts of the Balts with the Finno-Ugrians, Iranians, Thracians, Illyrians, Germans, etc.

Baltic languages ​​include: living Lithuanian and Latvian and sometimes especially distinguished Latgalian (eastern Baltic - Lithuania, Latvia, north-eastern Poland, part of Belarus), extinct Prussian (until the 18th century in East Prussia; its speakers Prussians switched to German and Lithuanian languages), Yatvingian language (Sudavian; north-eastern Poland, Southern Lithuania, adjacent regions of Belarus - Grodno region, etc.; remnants of it existed until the 18th century, and some traces were preserved in the speech of Lithuanians, Poles and Belarusians of the named area), Curonian language (the coast of the Baltic Sea within modern Lithuania and Latvia; disappeared by the mid-17th century and left traces in the corresponding dialects of the Latvian and Lithuanian languages), Zemgalian language (southern Central Latvia and Northern Lithuania; disappeared by the end of the 15th century, leaving traces in Latvian and Lithuanian dialects), Selonian language (Selian; it was spoken in the south-east of Latvia and north-east of Lithuania; attested in documents of the 13-15 centuries), Galindian language (it can only be judged by toponymic material localized in the south of Prussia ), Golyad language (in the north of the Kaluga region and in the Moscow region - on the Protva River; it can be judged by toponymic data, traces in Russian dialects, the name of the Golyad tribe, mentioned in Russian chronicles of the 11th-12th centuries) and other languages ​​of the Baltic population of the East Slavic territories (known only from toponymic data). Prussian, Yatvingian, Galindian and, apparently, Curonian languages ​​constitute the western subgroup of the Baltic languages ​​(Yatvingian and Galindian may have been dialects of Prussian), Latvian, Lithuanian, Semigallian and Selonian languages ​​- the eastern one. Perhaps it would be more correct to distinguish the languages ​​of the so-called outer zone of the Baltic area (Prussian and Curonian in the extreme west, Galindian and Yatvingian in the extreme south and, possibly, in the east), contrasted with the languages ​​of the so-called internal zones (Latvian and Lithuanian), formed as a result of the convergence of closely related adverbs within medieval states. The Baltic languages ​​of the outer belt were early subjected to Slavization and became entirely part of the substrate in the Polish and East Slavic languages, completely dissolving into them.

The Baltic languages ​​preserve the ancient Indo-European language system more fully than other modern groups of Indo-European languages. According to one point of view, they are a remnant of ancient Indo-European speech, preserved after the separation of other languages ​​from this family. Within the group of ancient Indo-European dialects, the Baltic languages ​​gravitate towards the so-called satem languages ​​(those in which the Indo-European back palatals are represented as sibilants), although in the Baltic languages ​​satemization was carried out with the least completeness. The Baltic languages ​​are especially close to the Slavic languages. This proximity is explained in different ways: by belonging to the same group of Indo-European dialects, which were in close proximity and experienced a number of common processes that continued the trends of Indo-European development; the relatively late territorial rapprochement of speakers of the Baltic and Slavic languages, which determined their convergence, as a result of which many common elements were developed; the presence of a common Balto-Slavic language - the ancestor of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​(the most common point of view); the original inclusion of Slavic languages ​​in the group of Baltic languages, from which they emerged relatively late. Close genetic connections unite the Baltic languages ​​with the ancient Indo-European languages ​​of the Balkans (with the Illyrian language, Thracian language, etc.).

The phonological structure of the Baltic languages ​​is characterized by a number of the following common features. The system of phonemes in Lithuanian and Latvian (their number in Latvian is somewhat less than in Lithuanian) and, apparently, in Prussian is described by a common set of differential features. Significant contrasts are palatal and non-palatal (such as k':k, n':n), simple consonants and affricates (с, ?, с?, ??), tense and untensed (е:ае, i:i?e, u:o); The phonemes f, x (as well as с и?dz in Lithuanian and d?z in Latvian) are found, as a rule, in borrowings. The similarity in the organization of the prosodic level of the Baltic languages ​​is important, despite the fact that the stress in Lithuanian is free, and in Latvian it is stabilized on the initial syllable. Vowel phonemes differ in length and shortness. Intonation contrasts and diphthongs (ai, au, ei, ie, ui) are characteristic.

The morphonology of a verb is characterized by quantitative and qualitative alternation of vowels, names - shifts in accent, changes in intonation, etc. The Baltic languages ​​have an exceptional wealth of suffixal inventory (especially for conveying diminutive - augmentative, endearment - pejorative).

The morphological structure of the Baltic languages ​​is characterized by the category of gender (masculine and feminine with traces of the neuter, especially in one of the well-known dialects of the Prussian language), number (singular - plural; examples of the dual number are known), case (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative, vocative form; the influence of the Finnish-language substrate explains the existence in Lithuanian dialects of the forms allative, illative, adessive), complex-uncomplicated (primarily in adjectives - full and short forms), gradualism (3 degrees of comparison for adjectives). In the declension of nouns, there are 5 types of stems - -o-, -a-, -i-, -u- and consonant. Along with the nominal type of declension, there is also a pronominal type, which plays a special role in the declension of adjectives. For a verb, the categories of number, person (1st, 2nd, 3rd), tense (present, past, future), mood (indicative, conditional, desirable, imperative; obligatory and retelling moods have developed in the Latvian language, obviously under the influence of the Finnish-language substrate), voice (active, reflexive, passive). It is more appropriate to consider differences in type and in causative-non-causative nature as facts of word formation. Different combinations of personal forms of the auxiliary verb with participles give rise to a variety of complex types of tenses and moods.

Syntactic connections in a Baltic sentence are expressed by forms of inflection, non-independent words and adjacency. The core of the sentence is “a noun in the nominative + a verb in the personal form.” In normal word order, the verb group follows the noun group in the nominative; in the group of a name, all case forms follow the name in the genitive if they are associated with it (this rule is especially significant due to the fact that the genitive in the Baltic languages ​​is capable of expressing almost all syntactic relations, except those characteristic of the nominative; hence the exclusive role of the genitive in syntactic transformations).

Vocabulary of Latvian, Lithuanian and Prussian languages ​​of original Indo-European origin. The lexical commonality of the Baltic languages ​​with the Slavic languages ​​is very large, explained both by the common origin and archaic nature of both language groups, and by a significant layer of Slavic borrowings in the Baltic languages. There are many Germanisms in the Lithuanian language and especially in the Latvian language; in Latvian (especially in dialects) there is a significant layer of borrowings from Finno-Ugric languages; many lexical internationalisms penetrated into the Baltic languages ​​not only directly, but also through Russian, Polish or German.

For information on the history of the study of Baltic languages, see the articles Baltic Studies, Latvian Language. Lithuanian language, Prussian language.

Lit. see the articles Baltic statistics, Latvian language, Lithuanian language, Prussian language.

Recently, the concept of “Balticism” (Eastern Baltic, Western Baltic languages, Baltic origin, Baltic names) has been used very often in historical literature. These terms are often used together with other concepts (paganism, migration, Slavicization). All together this significantly confuses the unprepared reader.

This short message is intended to explain in short, clear sentences the essence of the term “Balticism” to the widest range of readers. Thus, the article presented here is a kind of “LicBez” for those who want to grasp the essence of the theory without going into unnecessary details.

1. WHAT ARE THE BALTIC LANGUAGES

In its modern state, the Indo-European language group consists of Albanian, Armenian and Greek, as well as Romance, Germanic, Celtic, Baltic, Slavic, Iranian and Indian language groups. The Slavic and Baltic groups are often combined into one Balto-Slavic group due to their obvious similarities.

The Baltic (Baltic) languages ​​are represented today by only two living languages. They are divided into the eastern group (Lietuvian and Latvian) and the western (Prussian and Yatvyazhian - extinct relatively recently).

But in historical terms, the Baltic languages ​​are usually understood as one of the most ancient branches that separated from the primary Indo-European trunk, and even in the recent historical past occupied a vast territory. Some researchers even believe that the Baltic language group is a “first-order branch.”

2. BOUNDARIES OF THE BALTIC LANGUAGES

They are presented in the fundamental works of one of the world's leading researchers of the Baltic languages ​​V.N. Toporova. We present these boundaries according to his article “Baltic languages”.

“... Taking into account information about the peripheral zones of the ancient Baltic hydronymic area and the results of the analysis of individual parts of this area (the Upper Dnieper basin, Podesnye-Posemye, Poochye and especially the Moscow basin, the territory: the upper reaches of the Western Dvina and Volga, the strip south of Pripyat, basins of the Western Bug and Narev, the lower reaches of the Vistula, etc.), the maximum boundaries of the Baltic hydronymic area are determined with a high degree of probability by the line: the border of Estonia and Latvia - Pskov - southern Priilmenye - Toropets - Tver - Moscow - Kolomna - upper reaches of the Don - Tula – Orel – Kursk – Chernigov – Kiev – Zhitomir – Rivne – Warsaw – Bydgoszcz – Kolobrzeg...”

These boundaries of the distribution of the primary Baltic languages ​​are usually used in modern Russian-language historiography. However, recently very critical and important comments have appeared, which boil down to the following.

2.1. FIRST AMENDMENT

An obvious contradiction immediately strikes the eye - what relation does modern Estonia, Moscow, Kolomna and Don have to the Baltic group, because these territories are traditionally classified as part of the Finno-Ugric language group (the same V.N. Toporov - ???!!!). If some Balticisms are present there, then in a very limited number, they are easier to explain by coincidences and local borrowing than by the spread of the Baltic languages ​​itself. Therefore, the eastern border of the Baltic languages ​​in the latest edition is drawn along the line Latvia - Tver - the border of the Smolensk and Moscow regions - Kursk - Chernigov and further in the text.

Such a “severe invasion” of an alien Baltic element into the original Finnish environment near Moscow is explained by the all-Russian desire of V.N. Toporov, by any means and by any means, to include Moscow in the European zone.

2.2. SECOND AMENDMENT

The western border of the Baltic languages ​​Warsaw - Bydgoszcz - Kolobrzeg should be pushed further west at least to the Oder, if not further. There is an opinion that the original western border of the Baltic languages ​​should have passed along the Elbe, but during the period of the formation of the Slavs and the later German expansion, all primary Baltic place names and hydronyms were lost.

In general, the western border of the distribution of the Baltic languages ​​is very vague, but in any case it should be west of the line drawn by V.N. Toporov Warsaw - Bydgoszcz - Kolobrzeg, since he took into account only surviving toponyms and hydronyms.

3. “CONTINENT”, “BORROW”, “ISLAN” and “ARCHAISM”

The most capacious concept of basic concepts is given by the same V.N. Toporov in his article “Paradoxes of borrowings in a comparative historical perspective.”

“... It is necessary to pay attention to the possibility of a fundamentally different understanding of East Slavic Balticisms, namely: in the Russian dialects of the metropolis, Balticisms, strictly speaking, are not borrowings; here they are at home; they are not innovation, but archaism. The Balticisms themselves are immobile relative to different linguistic complexes (as, for example, in the Baltic area proper), but around these surviving archaisms of Baltic speech the linguistic environment itself changed so radically that they turned from part of the mainland into islands and, against the backdrop of the changes that took place around them, began to be perceived in a completely different topos. The main and initial thing began to be considered that from a historical point of view, strictly speaking, is a borrowing (that is, Russian words themselves) ... ".

That is, by “mainland” we mean the native linguistic environment of a given ethnic group; in our case, the original historical “mainland” was a certain Baltic language. “Borrowing” represents the replacement of elements of the “mainland” culture with external elements, that is, Slavicization was nothing more than an ordinary “borrowing”. “Borrowing” Slavicization was on such a global scale that over time it completely displaced the native Baltic culture from its “mainland”, that its remnants - “Balticisms” - turned into “islands” of “archaisms”.

Such “islands” of Baltic “archaisms”, which were a single Baltic linguistic “continent” 900 years ago, are scattered in large numbers throughout the territory of modern Belarus in the form of toponyms and ethnonyms. But the most obvious “archaic” Baltic “island” remained in the speech of the Belarusians - its well-known “dzekanie”.

Now our “mainland” is the Slavic language, it is secondary.

4. SPECIAL PROXIMITY OF THE SLAVIC AND BALTIC LANGUAGES

This closeness was noted at the beginning of the 19th century; since then, the opinion about this relationship in science has constantly grown and now it is customary to talk not just about “Balto-Slavic vocabulary,” but about “Balto-Slavic unity.” In the modern classification of languages, it is customary to combine the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​into a joint Balto-Slavic language group, which is understood as a hypothetical group of languages, from which the Baltic and Slavic groups of Indo-European languages ​​presumably emerged.

There are four main theories to explain the fact of such proximity. We adhere to the simplest and most obvious - the theory of V.N. Toporov about the development of the Slavic group from peripheral Baltic languages, that is, we are talking about a banal budding. The timing of budding is determined by the 3rd century AD, then the Slavic and Baltic branches developed in parallel. The site of budding is determined to be somewhere between the Elbe and the Oder, although archaeological evidence places the site further east. Being permanent neighbors, these branches enriched each other with numerous mutual borrowings, which maintained linguistic kinship. The current level of differences arose relatively recently and not earlier than 1000-800 years ago.

As a striking example of the depth of awareness of the closeness of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​in modern science, we cite a quote from the Bulgarian scientist V. Georgiev: “... there is such a great closeness between the Baltic and Slavic that the Lithuanian language, conservative in the field of phonetics and morphology, can to a certain extent replace the unattested Proto-Slavic language..."

The point of view about the existence of a Balto-Slavic language is also generally supported by archaeological data. In the forest zone of Eastern Europe in the early Iron Age (8th century BC - turn of the era) there were 4 main archaeological cultures, of which 2 were reliably not Balto-Slavic (Milohrad and Yukhnovskaya), and 2 were reliably Balto-Slavic (hatched culture ceramics and Dnieper-Dvina culture). Some researchers considered these two cultures to be Proto-Baltic, others - Proto-Slavic, but now researchers are inclined to believe that before the era of the great migration of peoples (second half of the 4th - 5th centuries AD) these were single Balto-Slavic cultures.

5. COMMON CULTURES

In connection with such a long common and parallel existence, it is natural to have common cultural traditions. In this section we list only those that are confirmed by the primary sources discussed on this site (see Helmold, Peter of Dusburg, Henry of Latvia, Hermann Wartberg, Chronicle of Lithuania and Samogit, Chronicle of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania).

5.1. CREMATION OF THE DEAD

It has been archaeologically established that the main feature of the ancient Balto-Slavic cultures, in comparison with all others, is the almost complete absence of funerary monuments (only about 20 burial grounds have been found over about 2 millennia). This is indirect evidence of cremation of the dead as the main funeral tradition of the ancient Balto-Slavs. The ritual continued until the end of the 14th century. The last cremated Grand Duke of Lithuania was Olgerd, 1377.

5.2. PAGANISM

Here we mean the commonality of traditions of deification of inanimate concepts - idols, groves, trees and the like. There are many chronicle identities and many surviving archaic common traditions, no doubt.

5.2. COMMON PANTHEON OF GODS

Quite a lot has been written about this, we will only voice the main identities: Perun-Pyarkunas (thunderer), Lel-Lyulkis (love and babies), Peklo-Pekkols (hell). The very concept of the god Divo is also identical, only among the Slavs it was transformed into the concept of a miracle. The God of the forests, Puskais, remained with the Slavs in the form of a forest - this is neither a grove nor a forest, this is the place where the God of the forest lives. By the way, if he lives in Belarus, then the best place for him is Belovezhskaya Pushcha, next to our Grandfather Zyuzya (Father Frost - Santa Claus).

5.3. SACRIFICES

In primary sources we find not only animal sacrifices, but also people (captives and... Christians). “... After the victory, they [the Prussians] made a sacrifice to their gods... now the Litvins and other pagans of these places burn the said sacrifice in some sacred place according to their rite...”

5.4. LOTS-DIVISION

There is more than enough evidence that the Litvins, Polabian Slavs, Prussians, Esti and Latts widely used the tradition of predicting fate using the method of blind lot (fortune telling). Often the lot coincided with the sacrifice of animals, and the fate of the prisoners depended on it.

5.5. ABSENCE OF BEGGARS

The social protection systems for the poor in Slavia and Prussia were identical. At Ran-Run-Ruyan “... there is not a single needy or beggar to be found anywhere because as soon as one of them becomes weak due to illness or becomes decrepit from age, he is entrusted to the care of one of the heirs, so that he would support him with all humanity...” The Prussians also had such social security, but the problem of beggary was solved differently: “... No one among them is allowed to beg; a beggar walks freely from house to house and eats whenever he wants without a twinge of conscience...”

5.6. THE LANGUAGE OF COMMUNICATION

The chronicles contain a lot of information when the united army of the Slavs and Balts was commanded by Slavic military leaders (Svyatopolk, Vitslav II, Vyachko, David of Grodno). Without a doubt, they had to communicate with their troops without interpreters.

5.7. MIGRATION

All chronicles are replete with information about mutual migration. Peter from Dusburg testifies that in 1275 the Pogezans were either exterminated or conquered by the Order “... except for a few who went with their servants to Lithuania, to the parish of the Garty [Novogrudok] castle...”. This quote already puts an equal sign between the Prussians, the Litvins and the Rutens. Volkovysk was given to the fugitive Prussians in Lithuania.

5.8. MILITARY ALLIANCES

Only Peter from Dusburg talks about the alliances of the Yatvyags and the Rusins, the Yatvyags and the Litvins, the Litvins and the Rusins, the Prussians and the Yatvyags, the Slavs of Pomerania and the Prussians. Helmold testifies to the general union of all Slavs.

5.9. SLAVIC-BALTIC MILITARY ALLIANCES

The union of the Slavs of Pomerania and the Balts of Prussia, described by Peter of Dusburg, lasted a total of about 44 years - from 1242 to 1286. Svyatopolk “... commanded that the converts, who easily slipped back to their previous errors, should one day from all corners of the Prussian land resume the war with their brothers...”. Roman Galitsky commanded the troops of Mindaugas during the campaign against Kyiv. In the years 1260-1265 we find the first reliable news of the existence of a military alliance against the Teutonic Order consisting of the Litvins, Yatvingians and Prussians. This alliance can be seen as a continuation of the military cooperation of the peoples of Prussia with the Slavs. The famous treaty with Galician Rus in 1219 lists both typically pagan Litvinian names and the completely Slavicized Rushkovichi and Bulevichi.

6. COMMON NAMES

It is quite obvious that, having a common Indo-European root, having a common tradition, the Slavs and Balts should have had a common system of proper names.

6.1. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES

Let us give examples that prove the common origin of proper names among the Balts and Slavs, using only examples from respected primary sources analyzed on this site.

1. City of the Polabian Slavs Dimin (Helmold) - Grand Duke of Lithuania Gedemin.

2. Prince of the Polabian Slavs Bodrichi Gottschalk (Helmold) - Grand Duke of Lithuania Voishelk.

3. The capital of the Polabian Slavs of the Vagr Stargard (Helmold) - Grand Duke of Lithuania Olgerd, Dovgerd - the leader of the Prussians Kantegerd (Peter of Dusburg).

4. Cities of the Polabian Slavs Bozov-Bozovo, Ilovo, Ratekovo, Milikovo, Smilovo (Helmold) - settlements and volosts of Prussia Gunds, Rogov, Girmov, Modenov, Rudov, Dramenov, Valdov, Kvedenov, Rinov, Tapiov, Vilov, Solidov, Retov, Katov, Kimenov, Kersov, Labegov (Peter from Dusburg) - volosts of Samogitia Gesovia-Geisov and Pastovia-Pastov (Peter from Dusburg) - castle in Poland Birgelov (Peter from Dusburg) - Kernov in Samogitia (Herman Wartberg) - people from the Riga magistrate Heinrich Tralove (Tralov) and Bernhard Darzov, Livonia volosts Sobenov, Gezove (Gezov) and Bastove (Bastov) (Herman Wartberg).

5. Cities of the Polabian Slavs Dimin, Kutsin, Zwerin-Schwerin (Helmold) - Prussian city Galin-Golin-Kolin, lake in Prussia Nogotin, Pruss Postelin, leader Litvinov Surmin, Pruss Pipin, Litvin from Samogitia Masin, noble people of Prussia Gobotins, merchant project in Prussia Gerkin (Peter of Dusburg) - elder of Estov Tabelin (Henry of Latvia).

6. The city of the Polabian Slavs Ratisbona (Helmold) - a castle in Samogitia Kolaine-Kolaina-Kolaina, the leader of the Prussians Gauvina, a castle in Prussia Valevona (Peter of Dusburg).

7. Cities of the Polabian Slavs Stolpe, Virukhne (Helmold) - the leader of the Prussians Sabine, Pruss Gedune, the nickname of the leader of the Prussians Klekine, an island in Prussia Quidino (Peter of Dusburg).

8. But the largest number of examples ends in –O. There are so many of them that we have selected only the most eloquent ones. Pinno the son of Litvin Draiko from Samogitia, the Prussian leader Missino, Litvin from Samogitia Spudo, the Samogitian nobles Mansto and Masio, Sklodo the son of Litvin Surmin, the Prussians Numo and Dersko who fled to Lithuania, the Prussian leader Linko (Peter from Dusburg) - the well-known Sadko, Rutensky appanage prince Vyachko (Henry of Latvia) - many names of the South Slavs - brother of the Teutonic Order Tammo, a native of East Germany, the former territory of the Polabian Slavs - Livy Valdeko, Vietzo, Est Lembito, Latt Rameko (Henry of Latvia) - crusader Rabodo (Henry of Latvia) - Prince of the Polabian Slavs Ran-Run-Ruyan Kruko (Henry of Latvia).

9. Pruss Girdilo (Peter from Dusburg) - Lithuanian Princes Skirgailo, Svidrigailo - modern Slavic surnames Dovgailo, Pogonyailo - obsolete Slavic nouns jam, mazidlo.

10. The volost in Prussia of Meruniska (Peter of Dusburg) - many Slavic cities in the North Caucasus.

11. Castle in Prussia Labegov (Peter from Dusburg), has a Slavic ending, translated from Prussian as “good”, a word with the same root as the Labe River, as the Polabian Slavs called the Elba, it was also “good”.

12. Pruss Miligedo, common Prussian and Slavic root “mil - to love” (Peter of Dusburg).

13. Amazing neighborhood, Peter from Dusburg: “... and those who lived in three other castles, namely: Unsatrapis, Gundov and Angetete...”. Unsatrapis is Eastern Baltic, Gundov is Slavic, Angetete is Western Baltic.

14. Nobile from Prussia Russigen, locality in Prussia Rossigen (Peter of Dusburg) - Letuvskoe Russiniai - leader of the Letts Rusin (Henry of Latvia) - the well-known root “Rus”.

15. Leader of the Litvins Vievald (Henry of Latvia) - the well-known German ending -ALD: Buchenwald, Oswald. Isn't this the neighborhood of the Lutichs and the Germans on the Elbe?

16. The city of the Polabian Slavs Volina (Helmold) is a well-known Volyn.

17. Finally, let’s just lump together all the inexplicable proper names: the field in Prussia Voiplok, the castle in Samogitia Medevaga, the field Kalsen in Samogitia, near this field the Vint forest, the noble from Samogitia Sudarg, Prussy Nakam, Stovemel, Surbanch, Glapp, Divan, Nalub, Maudel, Kandeym and Belial, Yatvyag Skumand (Peter of Dusburg), Latty Viliendi, Roboam, Garveder, Imaut, Talibald, Litvins Svelgat and Ninn, Prince of the Semigals Westgard, elders of the Estonians Lembit and Kirnavan, leader of the pagan Ruthenians Varemar (Henry of Latvia ) - the noble Litvins Ziva and Vesevilt, the Litvins' governor in Opitene-Upite Eginta, the Litvins' governor in Vilkomir Vilegailen, the great Litvins from Vilkomir Gegert (Herman Wartberg).

6.2. THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROPER NAMES FROM MODERN POSITIONS

In their desire to explain everything only from the standpoint of Lietuvian-Zemaitian etymology, Lietuvian interpreters of Prussian names reach the point of insanity. Let us give several examples of how to explain everything “in Lietuvian style” with the help of one desire.

6.2.1. EXAMPLE NUMBER ONE – KUDARE

Kudare – Pruss-Sudov. The basis of Kudr is associated with Lietuvian Kudra - “pond”, “swamp”, “wet place overgrown with bushes”, the Latvian Kudra - “peat”, “pond”, “swamp” has a similar meaning. The phonetics and grammar of the original and the modern “mirror” are practically the same. By value we get... Kudare “Marsh”, at best “Prudovy” or “Peat”.

Slavic analogue Bolotoslav, Prudoslav or Torfoslav (Bolotomir, Prudomir or Torfomir). A divine name for a beloved child - mom and dad, Lietuvises recommend it!

6.2.2. EXAMPLE NUMBER TWO – LINCO

Linko – leader of the Prussians-Pogesan. The basis of Link is associated with Lietuvsky Linka - “curve”. The phonetics and grammar of the original and the modern “mirror” are completely the same. By value we get... Linko “Curve”. A great name for a rebellion leader, it's instantly inspiring!

Slavic analogue Krivoslav (Krivomir). Do not refuse such a tempting wish from the Lietuvis - call your firstborns that way!

6.2.3. EXAMPLE NUMBER THREE – KLEKINE

Clekine is the nickname of Divan, the leader of the Prussians-Barts. They directly write that the origin is unclear, however... However, they still do not rule out connections with the Latvian Kleke - “lump” or with the Lietuvian Kleketi - “to clang”, “to gurgle”. Slavic equivalent of “click”. As a result, the result is still the “Clanging” Sofa, the “Gurgling” Sofa or the “Lumpy” Sofa... Who could give such a humiliating nickname to the leader of the uprising? Could the Prussians really “elevate” their leader like that?

Slavic analogue Bryakoslav, Bulkoslav (Bryakomir, Bulkomir). What a wonderful name for a son! And how many “Klekinas” do they have in Lietuwa?

6.2.4. EXAMPLE NUMBER FOUR – GOING

Jedet (Jedetus) is the leader of one volost of Sudovia (Yatva). Lietuvian interpreters of names suggest that the Lietuvian Gedauti is connected with the root Ged - “to yearn,” “languish,” “desire.” What do we get as a result? The leader of one volost in Sudovia-Jatvingia was Iedet “Sad” or Iedet “Longing”.

The best name for the leader of an entire region is “Dreary”!

Slavic analogue Toskoslav (Toskomir). How bad we are, we lived and lived and did not know what to call our sons! Hey, the Letuvises, well, thank you, you’ve finally enlightened us bad people!

6.2.5. EXAMPLE NUMBER FIVE – NO INTERPRETATION

Lietuvian interpreters did not even try to interpret about half of the proper names used by Peter of Dusburg (mostly Prussian) even in this way “in any way, as if it were in our own way.” That is, in general they could not find modern analogues in their Lietuvsky dictionary.

A real problem, we sympathize with them - half the unexplained names is too many. And in the second half there are such “pearls of Lietów etymology” as “gurgling”, “clanging”, “dreary” and “swampy”.

But the real trouble for the Lietuvis is that they are not able to interpret “in their own way” not only the Prussian names, but even the names of the Samogites and Litvins of that era.

Oh, trouble, real trouble!

6.3. OUR EXPLANATIONS

There is no point in trying to explain everything from a modern point of view, that time is gone forever, you can’t get it back, the Prussian language can’t be restored. The language has changed several times over 700 years. The same modern Belarusian arose only 200-250 years ago, and no one knows what our ancestors spoke 700 years ago. What can we say about the Baltic peoples, who did not have a written language, who were constantly under pressure from their written neighbors - the Germans and Slavs?

How to explain from a modern perspective the familiar names Sadko and Lel? Who is Vyachko? Is Lytvyn Draiko really from the word “tear”?

All the given names from 700 years ago are an example of a certain community of Slavs and Balts, who emerged from the trunk of one tree and lived across the fence from each other. The names given here are an example of this Slavic-Baltic community; these two peoples 700 years ago were just beginning to truly diverge in different directions. They understood each other without translators, they had the same names.

But from that time on, both directions, both Slavic and Baltic, continuously developed, constantly diverging from each other, one (Slavic) progressed, the second (Baltic) faded away. This led to the fact that both of these directions deviated so much from their common origins that they completely forgot about what happened 700 years ago.

As a result, neither the Slavs nor the Balts can now reliably explain what the names Linko, Kudare, Klekine and Jedet actually mean - this is a long-forgotten common page of history.

7. BALTO-SLAVIC LANGUAGE COMMUNITY

So, all the Slavs and the surviving Eastern Balts (Latvians and Lietuvis) come from a single Indo-European trunk, divergence occurred in the 3rd century AD. Over time, this divergence of linguistic and, accordingly, cultural characteristics progressed. But due to the constant proximity and cultural exchange between these two directions, further divergence of characteristics proceeded quite slowly, and by the 13th-14th centuries it had not yet reached the threshold line, beyond which not common, but different characteristics were already dominant.

The preservation of a common language by the 14th century is evidenced by the main primary sources.

Peter from Doesburg. The first Prussian-Pomeranian military alliance under the control of the Pomeranian Slavic Prince Svyatopolk lasted a total of 25 years, from 1242 to 1267, or a whole generation (see here “Peter of Dusburg. War with Prussia” section 11).

Peter from Doesburg. The second Prussian-Pomeranian military alliance under the control of the Slavic Prince of Ran-Run-Ruyan Witslaus 2nd lasted for a total of about a year, from 1286 to 1287, but was distinguished by extremely high Slavic influence: the Prussians were ready to give power to the Slavs, to recognize Witzlaus 2nd. their King, voluntarily agreed to the Slavic occupation (see here “Peter of Dusburg. War with Lithuania” section 12).

Peter from Doesburg. In total, Prussian-Slavic direct friendly relations lasted from 1242 to 1287, or 45 years, or two generations. The reason for their emergence, existence and development is obvious - these two peoples in the 13th century were relatives to each other, spoke the same languages, had practically a common culture, professed the same religion, and had common enemies.

The presence of an unconditional family connection between the Balts and the Slavs of the 13th centuries proves the existence of other military alliances of that time: Yatvyags and Rusins, Yatvyags and Litvins, Prussians Yatvyags and Litvins (see here “Peter of Dusburg. War with Prussia” section 10 and “Peter of Dusburg "War with Lithuania" section 13), David of Grodno as a single military leader of the united Rutheno-Litvinko-Zhemait troops, Viten and Prussians (see here "Peter of Dusburg. War with Lithuania" section 14).

The presence of an unconditional family connection between the Balts and the Slavs of the 13th centuries is also proven by the presence of a constant mutual migration flow (see here “Peter of Dusburg. War with Prussia” section 8 and “Peter of Dusburg. War with Lithuania” section 14).

In conclusion, we present a list of the ambassadors of Prince Igor of Kiev to Byzantium in 944, when it was “... entrusted to restore the old peace, disrupted for many years by the good-hating and hostile devil, and to establish love between the Greeks and Russians [in the original Rusyns] ...” : “... We are ambassadors and merchants from the Russian family, Ivor, ambassador of Igor, the Grand Duke of Russia, and general ambassadors: Vuefast from Svyatoslav, son of Igor; Iskusevi from Princess Olga; Sludy from Igor, nephew Igor; Uleb from Volodislav; Kanitsar from Predslava; Shikhbern Sfandr from Uleb's wife; Prasten Tudorov; Libiar Fastov; Make-up Sfirkov; Prasten Akun, Igor's nephew; Kara Tudkov; Karshev Tudorov; Egri Evliskov; Voist Voykov; Istr Aminodov; Prasten Bernov; Yavtyag Gunarev; Shibrid Aldan; Col Klekov; Steggy Etonov; Sfirka...; Alvad Gudov; Fudri Tuadov; Mutur Utin; merchants Adun, Adulb, Iggivlad, Uleb, Frutan, Gomol, Kutsi, Emig, Turobid, Furosten, Bruni, Roald, Gunastre, Frasten, Igeld, Turburn, Monet, Ruald, Sven, Steer, Aldan, Tilen, Apubexar, Vuzlev, Sinko , Borich, sent from Igor, the Grand Duke of Russia, and from every prince, and from all the people of the Russian land...”

How many Slavic names are there in this Kiev-Byzantine treaty? How to divide them into Slavic and others? How to interpret the true etymology of Stir, Tilen, Gomol, Yemig, Istra, Sfirka, Sinko and Borich?

Alas, this is simply impossible; the divergence of features over 1050 years has moved us so far from those origins that the meaning of these names can no longer be restored.

8. BALTO-SLAVIC COMMUNITY IN THE FORMATION OF SURNAMES

But we get the most vivid picture of the divergence of the Slavs and Balts from the common Balto-Slavic Indo-European trunk after studying the surnames. The historical community of the Balts and Slavs is most proven by the surnames used in the same 16th century. For example, let’s take the “Census of the troops of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” in 1528, Samogitsky parish of Berzhany (see here “Nationality of officials of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” section 7).

Let's compile a Slavic list of the original names from which surnames were formed (we shorten and omit the borrowed names - Mikhail, Yakov, Andrey, Peter): Mostvilovich - Mostvil, Pikelevich - Pikelo, Koilevich - Koilo, Kgitovtovich - Gitovt, Petkovich - Petko, Radivilovich - Radivil, Vezhevich - Vezha, Vishtartortovich - Vishtartort, Pikturnovich - Pikturn, Visvilovich - Visvil, Kgirdutovich - Girdut, Stankovic - Stanko, widow Bernatova - Bernat, Misheikovich - Misheiko, Monkgyalovich - Mongyalo, Montromovich - Montroma, Benyushovich - Benyush, Dorkgevich - Dorg, Medkginovich – Medgina, Drusutevich – Drusuta, Kontrimovich – Kontrim, Sirvidovich – Sirvido, Kgedvoinovaya widow – Gedvoino, Montvidovich – Montvid, Minyalkgovich – Minyalgo, Rovkutevich – Rovkuta, Dovyatovich – Dovyat, Vizkgirdovich – Vizgird, Montrimovich – Montrim, Dorkgevich – Dorg, Barvoy newbie – Barvoina, Kgedvilovich - Gedvil, Ganusovich - Ganus and so on.

Let's compile the Samogitian list of the original names from which the surnames were formed (since there are few of them, let's take the Poyure parish): Piktaitis - Piktait, Dorkgaitis - Dorgait, Stankeloitis - Stankeloit, Lovkintoitis - Lovkintoit, Sovkgovdis - Sovgovd, Vitkoitis - Vitkoit, Druginoitis - Druginoit, Yankoitis - Yankoit, Yasoitis - Yasoit, Demkgidoitis - Demgidoit.

By comparing the Slavic and Samogitian parts, we will find obvious common features; all names have a clear common essence.

At first glance, it immediately strikes the eye that there is a pronounced difference in Samogitian surnames; all the original names have the penultimate sound “Y”. From this we can easily conclude that the very concepts “ZhemaYt” and “AukshaYt” are in the same field. This is absolutely true, but the essence of this similarity is much deeper.

In fact, the explanation for the penultimate characteristic sound “Y” is as follows. Let’s replace all “Y” in Samogitian names with “V” (less often “N”) and we will get... Slavic names. Piktait - Pictavt (Piktovt), Dorgait - Dorgart (Dorgerd), Stankeloit - Stankelovt (Stankelont), Lovkintoit - Lovkintovt, Vitkoit - Vitkovt (Vitovt), Druginoit - Druginovt, Yankoit - Yankovt, Yasoit - Yasovt, Demgidoit - Demgidovt.

So, at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries we have:

Significant (secondary) divergence in surnames, which indicates significant linguistic differences (endings –IS and –OVICH);

A minor (primary) divergence in the original names, which consisted in the characteristic penultimate sound - among the Slavs it was the sound “V” (“N”), among the Baltic Samogitians it was the sound “Y”;

The absence of any divergence in the principles of writing the roots of proper names.

Considering the fact that Vytautas was not Vytautas, but precisely Vytautas much earlier, the primary divergence is reliably transferred to at least the middle of the 14th century. The discrepancy in nominal characteristics can be transferred to the very beginning of the 13th century, if we take into account that Mindovg was never Mindoig.

The transfer of the primary divergence of the nominal characteristics of the Slavs and Balts is reliable and deeper, since the very concepts of “Zhemogitia” and “Aukshaitia” already existed in the 13th century, but for this it is necessary to establish precisely: when did the terms “Zhemogitia” and “Aukshaitia” begin to be used in such writing. This will never be established, since in the Russian chronicles at that time the term Zhmud was used, and in the Latin Samagitia and Austenia.

Therefore, today the most acceptable would be the following reliable conclusion: the primary divergence of Slavic and Baltic characteristics was completed by the beginning of the 13th century, the secondary, or final, was completed by the end of the 15th century.

9. DIVERGENCE OF NAMES

A quote from Andrei Yutskevich’s work “A Brief History of the Lyutichs before the Exodus” is widely circulated on the Internet, but the work itself could not be found:

“... 1) Old Slavic Lithuanian names:

Alekhno, Borzo, Budikid, Butov, Viten, Warrior, Voidilo, Volchko, Davyat, Gedimin, Gedko, Golsha (Olsha), Golg (Olg), Davoino, Darozh, Zhedevid, Zhibentyai, Zhivinbud, Zhiroslav, Ispug, Kalikin, Kozleiko, Kruglets, Kukovoit, Kumets, Lelush, Lesiy, Les, Lizdeyko, Fox, We love, Lutover, Lutorg, Malk, Milko, Nezhilo, Nelyub, Nemanos, Nemir, Nestan, Plaksich, Polyush, Pramcheslav, Proksha, Poyato, Radislav, Ratmir, Rodoslav, Repenya, Rukla, Serput, Slavko, Troyden, Troinat.

2) Old Slavic Lithuanian names with “echoes” of Sanskrit:

Vilikaylo, Vitovt, Vishimont, Voishelk, Herbut, Gerden, Ginvil, Dovgerd, Dovspronk, Zhigont, Keistut (Gestut), Koribut, Korigailo, Koriyat, Lyubart, Mingailo, Mindovg (Mindok), Olgerd, Radzivil, Ringold, Svidrigailo, Tovtivil, Schwarn, Edivid, Yundzil, Jagiello, Yantok, Yamont...".

On our own behalf, we emphasize the Slavic nature of only two iconic names: Viten - sbiten - bel. vyazen (Russian prisoner) – a werewolf and Lubart (son of Gedemin, brother of Olgerd and Keistut, famous Lubart’s castle in Lutsk), whose name was transformed into the modern Lubosh.

The names listed here were used in the Belarusian territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania starting only from the 16th century. The author, drawing a conclusion about their “Old Slavic” origins, did not compare them at all with the earlier ones, which were witnessed by the same Peter of Dusburg and the same Kiev-Byzantine treaty of 944. The differences are obvious - names of the 16th century are significantly different from earlier ones, the culture of proper names has changed significantly over 300 years or more.

Therefore, from the list of names of Andrei Yutskevich, a completely different, more pragmatic conclusion is drawn: the names listed in this list represent a set of proper names chosen by the Slavs for themselves from the common primary Balto-Slavic set. This set of names from the 16th century only proves a certain late (secondary) divergence of the Slavs from the common Balto-Slavic cultural trunk, since it contains an obvious pagan Balto-Slavic layer.

This set of names has undergone significant changes every century depending on the influence of a particular culture; this change can be noticed by every person throughout his life.

10. LETTER F

As proof of the unity of the Baltic and Slavic languages, there can be an additional, but striking element - the absence of proper names in the writing...

To the origins of Rus'. People and language. Academician Trubachev Oleg Nikolaevich.

Slavic and Baltic

An important criterion for the localization of the ancient range of the Slavs is the related relations of Slavic to other Indo-European languages ​​and, above all, to Baltic. The scheme or model of these relations accepted by linguists radically determines their ideas about the habitats of the Proto-Slavs. For example, for Ler-Splavinsky and his followers, the close nature of the connection between the Baltic and Slavic dictates the need to search for the ancestral home of the Slavs in close proximity to the original area of ​​the Balts. The undeniability of the similarity of the Baltic and Slavic languages sometimes distracts the attention of researchers from the complex nature of this proximity. However, it is precisely the nature of the relationship between the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​that has become the subject of ongoing discussions in modern linguistics, which, we agree, makes the Balto-Slavic language criterion very unreliable in the matter of localizing the ancestral homeland of the Slavs. Therefore, first you need to at least briefly dwell on the Balto-Slavic linguistic relations themselves.

Similarities and differences

Let's start with vocabulary, as the most important component for etymology and onomastics. Supporters of Balto-Slavic unity point to a large lexical commonality between these languages ​​– over 1600 words . Kiparsky argues for the era of Balto-Slavic unity with common important innovations of vocabulary and semantics: names "head", "hand", "iron" etc. But iron is the latest metal of antiquity, the absence of common Balto-Slavic names for the more ancient copper (bronze) suggests contacts of the Iron Age era, that is last centuries BC s (cf. analogy of Celtic-Germanic relations ). New formations such as “head” and “hand” belong to frequently updated lexemes and can also date back to a later time . The above-mentioned “iron argument” even before a detailed check shows the instability of dating the separation of Proto-Slavic from Balto-Slavic around 500 BC. e.

There are many theories of Balto-Slavic relations. In 1969 there were five of them: 1) Balto-Slavic proto-language (Schleicher);
2) independent, parallel development close Baltic and Slavic dialects (Meie);
3) secondary convergence of Baltic and Slavic (Endzelin);
4) ancient community, then a long break and a new rapprochement (Rozvadovsky);
5) formation of Slavic from peripheral dialects of Baltic (Ivanov - Toporov).
This list is incomplete and not entirely accurate. If the theory of the Balto-Slavic proto-language or unity belongs mainly to the past, despite some new experiments, and a very sound (2) concept of independent development and secondary rapprochement of the Slavic and Baltic , unfortunately, did not receive new detailed developments, then radical theories explaining mainly Slavic from Baltic, are now experiencing their boom. However, it would be wrong to elevate them all to theory number 5, since Sobolevsky even put forward a theory about Slavic, as a combination of the Iranian language -x and the Baltic language -s [Sobolevsky A.I. What is the Slavic proto-language and the Slavic proto-people? // Izvestia II Department. Ross. AN, 1922, vol. XXVII, p. 321 et seq.].

Explained similarly the origin of the Slavic Pisani is from the Proto-Baltic with the Iranian superstrate [Pisani V. Baltisch, Slavisch, Iranisch // Baltistica, 1969, V (2), S. 138 – 139.].

According to Ler-Splavinsky, Slavs are Western proto-Balts with Veneti layered on them [Lehr-Slawinski T. About pochodzeniu i praojczyznie Slowian. Poznan, 1946, p. 114]. According to Gornung, on the contrary - the western peripheral Balts themselves broke away from the “Proto-Slavs” «[ Gornung B.V. From the prehistory of the formation of pan-Slavic linguistic unity. M., 1963, p. 49.].

The idea of ​​isolating the Proto-Slavic from the peripheral Baltic, otherwise the Slavic model as a transformation of the Baltic state, is put forward by the works of Toporov and Ivanov[ Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.N. On posing the question of the ancient relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. In the book:. Research in Slavic linguistics. M., 1961, p. 303; Toporov V.N. On the problem of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations. In the book: Current problems of Slavic studies (KSIS 33-34). M., 1961, p. 213].

This point of view is shared by a number of Lithuanian linguists. Close to the theory of Lehr-Splavinsky, but going even further is Martynov, who produces Proto-Slavic from the sum of Western Proto-Baltic with the Italic superstrate - the migration of the 12th century BC. e. (?) – and the Iranian superstrate. [ Martynov V.V. Balto-Slavic-Italian isoglosses. Lexical synonymy. Minsk, 1978, p. 43; It's him. Balto-Slavic lexical and word-formation relations and glottogenesis of the Slavs. In the book: Ethnolinguistic Balto-Slavic contacts in the present and past. Conference 11 – 15 Dec. 1978: Preliminary materials. M., 1978, p. 102; It's him. Balto-Slavic ethnic relations according to linguistics. In the book: Problems of ethnogenesis and ethnic history of the Balts: Abstracts of reports. Vilnius, 1981, p. 104 – 106].

The German linguist Schall suggests a combination: Baltoslavs = southern (?) Balts + Dacians . It cannot be said that such combinatorial linguistic ethnogenesis satisfies everyone. V.P. Schmid, being an ardent supporter of the “Baltocentric” model of everything Indo-European, nevertheless believes that neither Baltic from Slavic, nor Slavic from Baltic, nor both from Baltic-Slavic can be explained. G. Mayer considers both the concept of Baltic-Slavic unity and the derivation of Slavic facts from the Baltic model to be methodologically inconvenient and unreliable.

Quite a long time ago, the presence of numerous discrepancies and the absence of transitions between Baltic and Slavic was noticed, it was put forward opinion about the Balto-Slavic linguistic union with signs of secondary linguistic kinship and various kinds of areal contacts. [ Trost P. The current state of the issue of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations. In the book: International Congress of Slavists. Discussion materials. T. II. M., 1962, p. 422; Bernstein S.B. // VYa, 1958, No. 1, p. 48 – 49.]

Behind these contacts and rapprochements lie deep internal differences. . Even Ler-Splavinsky, criticizing the work of the Slavic model from the Baltic, drew attention to uneven pace of Baltic and Slavic language development [Lep-Splavinsky T.[Performance]. In the book: IV International Congress of Slavists. Discussion materials. T. II. M., 1962, p. 431 – 432].

The Balto-Slavic discussion should be persistently transferred from the plane of too abstract doubts about the “equivalence” of Baltic and Slavic, in the same number of “steps” taken by one and the other, which, it seems, no one claims, is translated into a specific comparative analysis of forms, etymology of words and names. Enough facts have accumulated, which even a cursory glance convinces.
The profound differences between Baltic and Slavic are evident at all levels. At the lexical-semantic level, these differences reveal an ancient character. According to the data of the “Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages” (EDS) (complete check of published issues 1 – 7), such important concepts How " lamb", "egg", "beat", "flour", "belly", "maiden", "valley", "oak", "hollow", "dove", "lord", "guest", "forge ( blacksmith)", are expressed in different words in the Baltic and Slavic languages. This list, of course, can be continued, including at the onomastic level (ethnonyms, anthroponyms).

Elementary and ancient differences in phonetics. Here we should note the movement of the Baltic series of vowel alternations in contrast to the conservative preservation of the Indo-European ablaut series in Proto-Slavic. Completely independently passed in the Baltic and Slavic satemization palatal posterior palatal reflexes, with the proto-Baltic reflex i.-e. k – sh, unknown to Proto-Slavic, which made the development k > с > s. It is simply impossible to find a “general innovation of the consonant system” here, and Schmalstieg’s recent attempt to directly correlate sh in glory pishetb - “writes” (from sj!) and sh in Lit. pieshti - "to draw" should be rejected as an anachronism.
Even more eloquent relationships in morphology. Nominal inflection in Baltic is more archaic than in Slavic, however, here too it is noted Proto-Slavic archaisms like gen. p.un. h. *zheny< *guenom-s [Toporov V.N. A few thoughts on the origin of inflections of the Slavic genitive. In: Bereiche der Slavistik. Festschrift zu Ehren von J. Hamm. Wien, 1975, p. 287 et seq., 296].

As for Slavic verb, then its forms and inflections in Proto-Slavic are more archaic and closer to the Indo-European state than in the Baltic.[Toporov V.N. On the question of the evolution of the Slavic and Baltic verb // Questions of Slavic linguistics. Vol. 5. M., 1961, p. 37]. Even those Slavic forms that reveal a transformed state, such as the inflection of the 1st l. units hours present time -o (< и.-е. о + вторичное окончание -m?), completely original Slavic and do not allow explanation on a Baltic basis. R

the distribution of individual inflections is sharply different, cf., for example, -s– as a formant of the Slavic aorist, and in the Baltic – future tense [ Meie A. Common Slavic language. M., 1951, p. 20.]. The old aorist with -e is preserved in Slavic (мн-?), and in Baltic it is presented in extended forms (Lithuanian minejo) [ Kurilovich E. On Balto-Slavic linguistic unity // Questions of Slavic linguistics. Vol. 3. M., 1958, p. 40.].

Slavic perfect *vede, dating back to the Indo-European non-reduplicated perfect *uoida(i), – archaism without Baltic correspondence . The Slavic imperative *jьdi - “go” continues I.-e. *i-dhi, unknown in Baltic.

Slavic participles ending in -lъ have an Indo-European background (Armenian, Tocharian); Baltic knows nothing like this . [Meie A. Common Slavic language. M., 1951, p. 211].

They represent the whole problem inflections 3rd l. units – pl. h., and Slavic reflects well the formants of I.-e. -t: -nt, completely absent in Baltic ; even if we assume that in Baltic we are dealing with the ancient non-inclusion of them in the verbal paradigm, then in Slavic represents an early innovation linking it with a number of Indo-European dialects, with the exception of Baltic. It's clear that the Slavic verbal paradigm is an Indo-European model, not reducible to the Baltic. [Ivanov Vyach. Sun. Reflection in Baltic and Slavic of two series of Indo-European verbal forms: Author's abstract. dis. for academic competition Art. Oct. Philol. Sci. Vilnius, 1978].

The reconstruction of the verb in Slavic has greater depth than in Baltic. [Savchenko A.N. The problem of systemic reconstruction of proto-linguistic states (based on the material of the Baltic and Slavic languages) // Baltistica, 1973, IX (2), p. 143].
Concerning nominal word formation , then both supporters and opponents of Baltic-Slavic unity paid attention to its deep differences in both Baltic and Slavic. [ Endzelin I.M. Slavic-Baltic studies. Kharkov, 1911, p. 1.].

Late Balts in the upper Dnieper region

After such a brief, but as specific as possible, description of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations, naturally, the view of their mutual localization is also concretized.
The era of the developed Baltic language type finds the Balts, apparently, already in places close to their modern range, that is, in the area of ​​the upper Dnieper region. At the beginning of the 1st millennium AD. e. there, in any case, the Baltic ethnic element predominates [ Toporov V.N., Trubachev O.N. Linguistic analysis of hydronyms in the upper Dnieper region. M., 1962, p. 236]. There is no sufficient basis to believe that the Upper Dnieper hydronyms allow for a broader - Balto-Slavic - characteristic, nor to look for the early range of the Slavs north of Pripyat.

The developed Baltic language type is a system of verb forms with one present and one preterite, which is very reminiscent of the Finnish languages.[Pokorny J. Die Trager der Kultur der Jungsteinzeit und die Indogermanenfrage. In: Die Urheimat der Indogermanen, S. 309. The author points to Finnish verbal system (one present - one preterite) due to the simplification of the time system in Germanic. For the Finnish substrate of the present Baltic area, see Prinz J.// Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie, 1978, XIV, S. 223.].
After this and in connection with this, one can give the opinion about comb ceramics as a probable Finnish cultural substrate of the Balts of this time ; here it is appropriate to point out the structural Balto-Finnish similarities in the formation of complex hydronyms with the second component “-lake” first of all. Wed. Lit. Akle zeris, Balte zeris Gude zeris, Juodo zeris Klev zeris , ltsh. Kalne zers, Purve zers, Saule zers and other additions to —ezeris, -upe, -upis "Finnish" type, Wed Vygozero, Pudozero, Topozero in the Russian North. [ Toporov V.N., Trubachev O.N. Linguistic analysis of hydronyms in the upper Dnieper region. M., 1962, p. 169 – 171.].

Mobility of the Baltic range

But we must approach the Baltic area with the same measure of mobility (see above), and this is very significant, since it breaks the usual views on this issue (“conservatism” = “territorial stability”). At the same time, different fates of ethnic Balts and Slavs emerge according to language data.

Balto-Daco-Thracian connections of the 3rd millennium BC. e. (Slavic does not participate)

The “cradle” of the Balts was not always located somewhere in the Upper Dnieper region or the Neman basin, and here’s why. For quite some time now, attention has been paid to connection between the Baltic onomastic nomenclature and the ancient Indo-European onomastics of the Balkans. These isoglosses especially cover the eastern - Daco-Thracian part of the Balkans , but in some cases also concern the Western - Illyrian part of the Balkan Peninsula . Wed. tailcoat Serme – lit. Sermas, names of rivers, tailcoat. Kerses – Old Prussian Kerse, names of persons; tailcoat Edessa , name of the city, Balt. Vedosa, Upper Dnieper hydronym, tailcoat. Zaldapa – lit. Zeltupe et al. [ Toporov V.N. Towards Thracian-Baltic linguistic parallels. In the book: Balkan linguistics. M., 1973, p. 51, 52.]

From appellative vocabulary proximity should be mentioned room doina - song - autochthonous Balkan element - lit. daina - “song” [Pisani V. Indogermanisch und Europa. Mimchen, 1974, S. 51]. Particularly important for early dating Asia Minor-Thracian correspondences to Baltic names, Wed expressive tailcoat. Prousa , the name of the city in Bithynia is Balt. Prus-, ethnonym [Toporov V.N. Toward Thracian-Baltic linguistic parallels. II // Balkan linguistic collection. M., 1977, p. 81 – 82.].

Asia Minor-Thracian-Baltic correspondences can be multiplied, and due to such significant ones as Kaunos, a city in Caria, – lit. Kaunas [Toporov V.N. Towards ancient Balkan connections in the field of language and mythology. In the book: Balkan linguistic collection. M., 1977, p. 43; Toporov V.N. Prussian language. Dictionary. I – K. M., 1980, p. 279]. Priene, a city in Caria, – lit. Prienai, Sinope, a city on the Black Sea coast , – lit. Sampe < *San-upe, name of the lake.

Affected Thracian forms cover not only Troad, Bithynia , but also Kariya . Distribution of the Thracian element in western and northern Asia Minor dates back to a very early time, probably II millennium BC e. , therefore we can agree with the opinion regarding the time of the corresponding territorial contacts of the Baltic and Thracian tribes - approximately III millennium BC. uh . We cannot help but be interested in the indication that Slavic does not participate in these contacts .
Early proximity of the Balts' range to the Balkans allow you to localize the investigations that established presence of Baltic elements south of Pripyat, including cases in which it is even difficult to discern the direct participation of the Baltic or Balkan-Indo-European - hydronyms Tserem, Tseremsky, Saremsky < *serma -[Trubachev O.N. Names of rivers of Right Bank Ukraine. M., 1968, p. 284].

Western Balkan (Illyrian) elements must also be taken into account, especially in the Carpathian region, on the upper Dniester , as well as their connections with the Baltic. [Toporov V.N. Several Illyrian-Baltic parallels from the field of toponomastics. In the book: Problems of Indo-European linguistics. M., 1964, p. 52. et seq.].